• No results found

# Vol 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 173 posttest comparison of the EIG learners, the same result was obtained That is, the p value was

In document Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 (Page 173-175)

found to be less than .05. This means that the grammar posttest scores of the learners in both TBLTG and EIG improved significantly due to the treatment they received.

5.2. Results for the Third Research Question

To find out the possible differences among the three groups of learners in this study, one-way between groups ANOVA was conducted twice: once for the comparison of the grammar scores of the three groups at the beginning of the study and a once again for comparing these groups’ grammar scores after the experiment was conducted.

Table 2

Results of One-Way ANOVA for Comparing TBLTG, EIG, and CG Mean Scores on the Pretest

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.26 2 .63 .18 .83

Within Groups 295.23 87 3.93

Total 296.50 89

Table 2 reveals that there was not a statistically significant difference in the pretest scores for TBLTG (M = 10.76, SD = 1.92), EIG (M = 10.73, SD = 1.99), and CG (M = 11.00, SD = 1.57) because

the p value under the Sig. column was greater than the specified level of significance (i.e. .83 >

.05). This indicates that the three groups did not significantly differ in terms of their knowledge of grammar at the outset of the study.

Table 3

Results of One-Way ANOVA for Comparing TBLTG, EIG, and CG Mean Scores on the Posttest

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 256.200 2 128.100 83.98 .000

Within Groups 132.700 87 1.52

Total 388.900 89

As it is shown in Table 3, the difference in the posttest scores among TBLTG (M = 16.86, SD = 1.25), EIG (M = 15.26, SD =.98), and CG (M = 12.76, SD = 1.43) reached statistical significance because the p value under the Sig. column was smaller than the specified level of significance (i.e. .000 < .05). This shows that the three groups significantly differed in terms of their knowledge of grammar at the end of the experiment, which might be attributable to the treatments they were exposed to. There is still one thing unanswered: whether the significant difference was between TBLTG and EIG, TBLTG and CG, EIG and CG, or even among all the three groups of learners. Pairwise comparisons of these groups are presented in the LSD post hoc test in Table 4.

Table 4

Results of the LSD Post Hoc Test for Comparing TBLTG, EIG, and CG Mean Scores on the Posttest

Groups Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

TBLTG EIG 1.60000* .31888 .000 .9662 2.2338

CG 4.10000* .31888 .000 3.4662 4.7338

EIG TBLTG -1.60000* .31888 .000 -2.2338 -.9662

### Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 174

CG 2.50000* .31888 .000 1.8662 3.1338

CG TBLTG -4.10000* .31888 .000 -4.7338 -3.4662

EIG -2.50000* .31888 .000 -3.1338 -1.8662

In the top row, it could be seen that the TBLTG (M = 16.86) was significantly different from the EIG (M = 15.26) since the p value in front of this comparison was .000, which is less than .05. Similarly, TBLTG differed significantly from CG (M = 12.76) as p = .000. In addition, the difference between EIG and CG was of statistical significance (p = .000). This would mean that TBLG learners significantly outperformed EIG learners, who, in turn, significantly outperformed CG learners. In other words, the two experimental groups had better performances than the CG, and among the experimental groups, task-based teaching group benefited more than the explicit instruction group from its treatment.

6. Discussion

To test the first research hypothesis: Task-based teaching does not have any significant effect on learning conditional sentences type 2 by Iranian intermediate EFL learners,the pretest and posttest scores of the task-based language teaching group learners were compared using a paired-samples t test. The analysis of the results pointed to the significant improvement of posttest scores compared to pretest ones meaning that the treatment through this method was effective. Therefore, the first research hypothesis could be safely rejected.

The positive impact of task-based instruction could be due to the influential characteristics of this recent approach to teaching. As Swan (2005) stated task-based instruction mainly include natural or naturalistic language use, and the activities are concerned with meaning rather than language. Instruction is basically learner-centered instead of teacher-centered. Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and decisively while involved in the activities and tasks. Since purely naturalistic learning does not normally lead to target-like accuracy, engagement is essential in order to promote the acquisition of formal linguistic elements while keeping the perceived advantages of a natural approach. This is done by providing opportunities for focus on the form, which will draw students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose prime focus is on meaning or communication. Traditional approaches compared to this more recent one are ineffective and undesirable, especially where they involve passive formal instruction and practice separated from communicative work. The emphasis is on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language, and materials are authentic (Nunan, 1991). Errors are not necessarily the result of bad learning, but are part of the natural process of interlanguage forms gradually moving towards target forms (Ellis, 1994).

To test the second hypothesis: Explicit teaching does not have any significant effect on learning conditional sentences type 2 by Iranian intermediate EFL learners, the pretest and posttest scores of the explicit instruction group learners were compared using a paired-samples t test. The analysis of the results indicated that explicit teaching of the target structure can also lead to significant improvement of the learners’ performance. Therefore, the second research hypothesis could be safely rejected as well. The logic behind such finding can lie in the merits of explicit instruction. Explicit grammar instruction supplies the declarative knowledge of grammar, it creates awareness and leads to conscious learning and noticing (Schimidt’s noticing hypothesis, 1990). It ends up with automatization. Explicit grammar instruction is conducive for “knowing the rules” of a language. In addition, it provides a solid knowledge of grammar and syntax In other words, this all amounts to mastering how the language works. It is useful for pointing out the particularities of a language, the exceptions. For example, overtly discussing word order and irregular verbs in the English language results in a greater awareness of the intricacies of the

### Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 Page 175

In document Vol. 6, Issue 9, December 2016 (Page 173-175)

Outline

Related documents