between the age groups. P-value (sig.) for the Levene’s test (0.321, p>0.05), hence we can assume equal variances and report the first row entitled ‘Equal variances assumed’. Below the section of T-test for Equality of means, we focused on the sig (2-tailed) column; the P-value (0.546, P>0.05). This shows that there is not a significant difference at (0.05) level between the experimental and control groups according to the age variable. Given the significant result found, we can now argue that experimental group’s age is not statistically different from the control group’s age (with t-value: 0.6, df: 78; P value (0.546). In our example, the significance of 0.469 accordingly, means that our distribution is not significantly different from a normal distribution.
With response to Q (1) (i.e. Does concept mapping strategy in asking and answering higher-order questions affect the speaking proficiency of Iranian learners?)
The following hypothesis emerged from this question:
Concept mapping strategy does not affect the speaking proficiency of Iranian learners. To answer this question the researcher firstly calculated the means, and the standard deviation for the pre- test and the post-test, then t-test was performed to determine the differences of these means. Table 4.6 shows the descriptive statistics for participants‘ scores on pre-test and post-test of speaking proficiency in order to establish whether the means of performances for two independent groups are significantly different from each other.
Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics of Speaking Pre and Post-Test by Groups
group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
pre.test case 40 5.5250 .55412 .08761
control 40 5.4250 .50064 .07916
post.test case 40 7.8250 1.73778 .27477
control 40 5.4250 .50064 .07916
Figure 2. The experimental and control groups’ mean scores on the pretest
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 36
Figure 3. The experimental and control groups’ mean scores on the posttest
As the Table 6 shows, the participants‘ mean scores and standard deviation of each group in pre- test and post-test are (Experimental: 5.52; Control: 5.42) (Experimental:7.82; Control: 5.42), respectively. In the pre-test, it is found that there is no significant difference between the groups. In other words, it is assumed that the two groups started out with equivalent means prior the run of treatment. In contrast, the mean scores of each group in post-test indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the two means in favor of the post-test mean.
Table 4.7 shows the results of the Independent sample t-test to find out if the participants' scores on pre and post-intervention are significantly different or not.
Table 4.7 Independent Samples t-test for the Pre and Post-Test of Control and Experimental 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
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 37
The table shows that, P-value for the Levene’s test in pre and post-test, are both greater that 0.05; so, the equal variances are assumed and the first row of the table is reported. It is also evident that the difference between the participants‘ performance on the pre-test is not significant at 95% confidence interval with (t=0.847; sig(2-tailed): 0.40), indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in the pre-test scores of both groups. In addition, the results of the t-test for independent samples of the post-test scores shows that the scores of the experimental and control groups differed significantly with (t=8.39; P-value< 0.001) indicating that there is significant difference between the post-test scores of both groups, on which the experimental group scored higher than the control group. According to the results in table 4.7, it can be concluded that the computed P-value for the post-test scores was less than the set alpha value (0.05). Therefore, the differences in post-test mean scores among two groups are statistically significant. Thus, it shows that the two groups are not at roughly the same level of speaking ability after the treatment.7. Speaking Proficiency of Two Groups through Paired t-test
This section addresses how the means of the two samples of related data are different before and after the intervention through utilizing Paired Samples t-test. The results windows for the paired samples t-test display the summary statistics of the two samples. In order to compare the differences between two related variables like the speaking proficiency of each group in their pre and-post test scores independently, paired sample t-test was used. The results of the mean difference between the paired observations, the standard deviation of these differences, and the standard error of the mean differences has been given in table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics of the Two Groups Considering Pre-Test and Post-Test
group Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
case Pair 1 pre.test 5.5250 40 .55412 .08761
post.test 7.8250 40 1.73778 .27477
control Pair 1 pre.test 5.4250 40 .50064 .07916
post.test 5.6150 40 .52013 .08224
As it is evident from the table 4.8, there is a significant difference in the scores for experimental group (M=5.52, 7.82; SD=0.554, 1.73); while this difference between the pre and post-test of the pre.test Equal variances assumed 1.752 .189 .847 78 .400 .10000 .11808 -.13507 .33507 Equal variances not assumed .847 77.210 .400 .10000 .11808 -.13511 .33511 post.test Equal variances assumed .781 .380 8.393 78 .000 2.40000 .28594 1.83073 2.96927 Equal variances not assumed 8.393 45.429 .000 2.40000 .28594 1.82423 2.97577
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 38
control group is not significant (M=5.42, 5.61; SD=0.50, 0.52). The table 4.8 reflects a higher result in post-test, compares with the pre-test score of the experimental group. The standard deviation of the experimental group on the pre-and-post tests are 0.554 and 1.737, respectively; this shows that the difference among students’ pre-test score was smaller than that of the post-test score. Thus, the experimental group’ pre-and-post-test mean scores are somewhat different. So, null hypothesis in rejected in this section. In other words, drawing concept mapping by the students had positive effects on speaking proficiency of them.Table 4.9, shows the results of the comparison of paired scores for pre-test and post-test of control and experimental groups at the level of 0.05, to find out if the participants’ scores of each group before and after the run of the treatment are significantly different or not.
Table 4.9 Results of the Paired Samples t-Test for Both Groups
Group Paired Differences t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Case Pair 1 pre.test - post.test -2.30000 1.50555 .23805 - 2.78150 - 1.81850 -9.662 39 .000 Control Pair 1 pre.test - post.test -.19000 .07779 .01230 -.21488 -.16512 -1.448 39 0.487
As evident in the above table, the difference between the experimental group participants‘ scores is significant with (t=-9.66; P < 0.001) at 95% confidence interval, indicating that the participants in this group had a statistically significant difference between the mean proficiency of pre-test and post-test. On the other hand, the difference between the control group participants’ scores is not significant with (t=-1.448; P value=0.487) at 95% confidence interval, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between the two conditions. Therefore, it can be concluded that both experimental and control groups had an increase in their speaking proficiency, but the mean scores for the experimental group was higher.
With response to Q(2) (i.e. Is there any difference between male and female learners achieving English speaking proficiency using concept mapping strategies in answering higher-order questions?)
The following hypothesis emerged from this question:
There is no difference in male and female Iranian language learners answering higher-order questions.
In order to either confirm or reject the null hypothesis, the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the male and female participants of the experimental and control groups are compared. The descriptive statistic information of the comparisons is summarized in table 4.10. The mean score of male participants on the pre-test is 5.46 and that of female participants is 5.48. This value for the male and female participants on the post-test is 6.65 and 6.81 respectively. Accordingly, female participants had a slightly higher score than the male participants.
Table 4.11 presents the results of independent-sample t-test for male and female participants‘ mean score on two separate intervals of pre and post-test
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 39
Table 4.11 Independent Samples t-Test for Male and Female Learners’ Mean Scores
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 pre.test Equal variances assumed 1.370 .245 .139 78 .890 .01676 .12046 -.22306 .25659 Equal variances not assumed .136 63.848 .892 .01676 .12293 -.22883 .26236 post.test Equal variances assumed 1.166 .283 .406 78 .686 .15680 .38618 -.61203 .92564 Equal variances not assumed .365 43.230 .717 .15680 .42989 -.71003 1.02363
Figure 4 Male and female learners’ mean scores on the post-test
Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 40
,Figure 5 Male and female learners’ mean scores on the pre-test
The P-value on the Levene’s test is printed as 0.24 and 0.28 for pre and post-test, respectively; which is greater than 0.05 for each interval run of tests. Therefore, we rely on the first row of output, Equal Variances Assumed, when we look at the results for the actual Independent samples t-test. The primary t-test reveals no significant difference between the mean pre-test scores on achievement of experimental and control group. Overall result indicates that concept mapping is significantly better than no treatment. According to the table 4.11, P- value for the pre-test of male and female learners is higher than the level of significance 0.05 (t= 0.139; sig.2- tailed= 0.89), which indicates that there is no significant difference between male and female's scores of pre-test. On the other hand, P-value for the post-test of male and female participants is (0.68) which is higher than the conventional value of 0.05, with (t= 0.40; sig.2tailed= 0.68) indicating that the means of two variables are equal after the intervention, as well. Accordingly, the corresponding null hypothesis to the second research question regarding no gender differences between the male and female learners is verified. In this study, both boys and girls seemed to equally benefit while learning English concepts cooperatively.
8.Discussion of Findings
In this study, the answers given to two important questions and attributed to the influence of concept mapping strategy use on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking abilities and attitudes towards using that strategy were examined. Regarding the first research question, this study began with this assumption that concept mapping strategy does not affect the speaking proficiency of Iranian learners. During this time the researcher employed the strategy and instructed the learners in the experimental group how to apply them in their speaking and answering higher-order questions related to the topic being discussed. The students on the control group, on the other hand, did not receive any instruction in using this strategy in their speaking of foreign languages. After the post-test, the results indicated that the teaching of this strategy did have an effect on the high- intermediate level male and female Iranian language learners’ speaking proficiency. The results