exploring the relationship between high school efl students level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (8.26 MB, 168 trang )

<span class="text_page_counter">Trang 1</span><div class="page_container" data-page="1">

<b>MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>--- ∞0∞--- </b>

<b>HOANG PHUONG TIEU ANH </b>

<b>EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL EFL STUDENTS' LEVEL </b>

<b>OF EXTRAVERSION AND THEIR PREFERENCES FOR ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK </b>

<b>Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Major code: 8 14 01 11 </b>

<b>MASTER THESIS </b>

<b>MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL </b>

<b>Supervisor: Dr. NGUYEN THI THANH HA </b>

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 2</span><div class="page_container" data-page="2">

THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC

GIẤY XÁC NHẬN

Tơi tên là: HỒNG PHƯƠNG TIỂU ANH

Ngày sinh: 26/11/1995 Nơi sinh: Tiền Giang Chuyên ngành: Lý luận và phương pháp giảng dạy bộ môn Tiếng Anh Mã học viên: 1781401110002

Tôi đồng ý cung cấp tồn văn thơng tin luận văn tốt nghiệp hợp lệ về bản quyền cho Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh sẽ kết nối tồn văn thông tin luận văn tốt nghiệp vào hệ thống thông tin khoa học của Sở Khoa học và Công nghệ Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.

Ký tên

Hoàng Phương Tiểu Anh

Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 3</span><div class="page_container" data-page="3">

Ý KIẾN CHO PHÉP BẢO VỆ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN

<small>Giảng viên hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Hà </small>

<small>Học viên thực hiện: Hoàng Phương Tiểu Anh Lớp: MTESOL017A </small>

<i><small>Tên đề tài: Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion </small></i>

<small>and their preferences for oral corrective feedback </small>

<small>Ý kiến của giáo viên hướng dẫn về việc cho phép học viên Hoàng Phương Tiểu Anh được bảo vệ luận văn trước Hội đồng: </small>

<small>Đồng ý cho học viên Hoàng Phương Tiểu Anh bảo vệ luận văn. </small>

<i><small>Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 04 tháng 10 năm 2021 </small></i>

<small>Người nhận xét </small>

<small>Nguyễn Thị Thanh Hà </small>

123docz.net - File bi loi xin lienhe:

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 4</span><div class="page_container" data-page="4">

123docz.net - File bi loi xin lienhe:

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 5</span><div class="page_container" data-page="5">

<b>STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP </b>

<b>I certify that this thesis entitled “Exploring the relationship between high school </b>

<b>EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback” is my own work. </b>

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, 2021

Hoang Phuong Tieu Anh

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:03 PM5:46:03 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 6</span><div class="page_container" data-page="6">

I would like to acknowledge the 367 Grade 10 students who kindly agreed to participate in this study despite their heavy learning schedules. The pilot study and main data collection would not have been completed without their support and willingness.

I would like to dedicate this MA thesis to my late grandfather who always cared for me and believed in my ability to succeed. My special thanks are given to my beloved family members, my parents, my aunt, my elder sister and my niece for their love and support throughout the years that promoted my strength to complete the present study.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 7</span><div class="page_container" data-page="7">

ABSTRACT

The present study is an attempt to explore high school students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected. It also aims at examining the possible relationship between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback in the communicative classroom. The study was carried out in a Vietnamese public high school with the participation of 314 Grade 10 non-English majored students. The study adopted a mixed methods design with data collected by two self-reported questionnaires and follow-up interviews. It was found that most Truong Dinh High School’s Grade 10 students in the study had an average level of extraversion. In terms of their preferences for oral corrective feedback, it was revealed that the majority of participants agreed on the necessity of oral corrective feedback and they preferred a selective approach to error treatment. Besides, students preferred delayed error correction; they favored input-providing feedback strategies and explicit error correction. In addition, most students highly valued teacher correction and their least preferred errors to be corrected during class time were grammatical oral errors. Interestingly, six statistically significant correlations were found between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback. Specifically, extraversion level was found to correlate negatively with learners’ preferences for all-error correction and correlate positively with learners’ preferences for the correction of frequent errors and stigmatizing errors to native speakers, immediate correction, teacher correction and peer correction. Findings from the study research reflect students’ desire to receive corrective feedback and their varied preferences towards error treatment, which possibly and partially resulted from individual differences factors, such as extraversion. These findings offer pedagogical implications and suggestions for future investigation.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 8</span><div class="page_container" data-page="8">

1.1. Background of the study ... 1

1.2. Rationale for the study... 3

1.3. Research objectives and research questions ... 4

1.4. Scope of the study ... 5

1.5. Significance of the study ... 5

1.6. Organization of the research ... 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

2.1. Error Correction in the foreign language classroom ... 7

2.1.1. The Concepts of Errors ... 7

2.1.2. Error Treatment of Different Approaches to Foreign Language Teaching ... 8

2.2. Corrective Feedback in the foreign language classroom ... 9

2.2.1. Definitions of Corrective Feedback ... 9

2.2.2. Five Fundamental Issues of Oral Corrective Feedback ... 11

2.2.3. Learners’ Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback ... 19

2.3. Extraversion and Language Learning ... 23

2.3.1. Extraversion as a Psychological Dimension ... 23

2.3.2. Extraversion as an Affective Factor in Classroom Setting ... 24

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 9</span><div class="page_container" data-page="9">

3.5.1. Quantitative data analysis ... 48

3.5.2. Qualitative data analysis ... 50

3.6. Reliability and Validity ... 51

3.6.1. Questionnaires ... 51

3.6.2. Interviews ... 57

3.7. Summary ... 58

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 59

4.1. Grade 10 students’ level of extraversion ... 59

4.2. Grade 10 Students’ Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback ... 61

4.2.1. The Necessity of Oral Corrective Feedback ... 61

4.2.2. The Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback ... 66

4.2.3. Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies ... 68

4.2.4. Oral Corrective Feedback Providers ... 72

4.2.5. Types of Oral Errors to Be Corrected ... 74

4.3. The Relationship between Grade 10 Students’ Level of Extraversion and Their Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback ... 76

4.3.1. Level of Extraversion and Necessity of Oral Corrective Feedback ... 77

4.3.2. Level of Extraversion and Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback ... 78

4.3.3. Level of Extraversion and Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies ... 79

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 10</span><div class="page_container" data-page="10">

4.3.4. Level of Extraversion and Oral Corrective Feedback Providers ... 80

4.3.5. Level of Extraversion and Types of Oral Errors to be Corrected ... 81

4.4.3. Research question 3: Are there statistically significant correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of necessity, timing, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types? ... 89

Appendix A: QUESTIONNAIRES (English version) ... 123

Appendix B: QUESTIONNAIRES (Vietnamese version) ... 128

Appendix C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (English version)... 133

Appendix D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (Vietnamese version) ... 135

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 11</span><div class="page_container" data-page="11">

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 12</span><div class="page_container" data-page="12">

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The taxonomy of oral corrective feedback strategies (adapted from Sheen & Ellis (2011)’s study) ... 14 Table 2.2 Oral corrective feedback strategies ... 15 Table 4.1 Frequency distribution of five groups of students’ level of extraversion (N = 314) ... 61 Table 4.2 Students’ preferences for the necessity of oral corrective feedback (N = 314) ... 62 Table 4.3 Students’ preferences for the timing of oral corrective feedback (N = 314) . 67 Table 4.4 Students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback strategies (N = 314) ... 69 Table 4.5 Students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback providers (N = 314) ... 73 Table 4.6 Students’ preferences for the frequency to correct each type of oral errors (N = 314) ... 75 Table 4.7 Spearman Correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for the necessity of oral corrective feedback (N = 314) ... 77 Table 4.8 Spearman Correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for the timing of oral corrective feedback (N = 314) ... 79 Table 4.9 Spearman Correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback strategies (N = 314) ... 80 Table 4.10 Spearman Correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback providers (N = 314) ... 81 Table 4.11 Spearman Correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for the types of oral errors (N = 314) ... 82

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 13</span><div class="page_container" data-page="13">

INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the study

The world is widely referred to as a global village and one necessary part of becoming a global citizen is being able to successfully communicate in an international language. English has been considered “a world language in both senses: international and global” (Halliday, 2006, p.362). As English is used in almost every respect of global interaction, there has been an increasing demand from English learners to enhance their communicative competence and thus the teaching of communication skills has been receiving greater attention.

In most Vietnamese public schools, despite Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training’ rhetoric of the significance of communication skills and the growing needs from learners for better communication competence, English teaching practice is still “grammar-based, textbook-focused, and examination-centred” (Le & Phan, 2013, p. 248), which means Vietnamese language classroom practices adopt a traditional approach that focused on reading and lexico-grammatical knowledge for students to cope with national examinations rather than on communicative competence (Le, 2001; Nunan, 2003). The problems of large-sized classes, the lack of well-qualified language teachers, poor classroom facilities and resources (Hoang, 2010) as well as the lack of English-speaking environment inside and outside the classrooms throughout the country (Nguyen, 2004) also contribute to the deemphasizing of the teaching of English communication skills in Vietnamese public schools. This can result in the situation that Vietnamese public school students do not have much communication practice and it is very likely that they frequently make errors when they speak. Oral error correction is, therefore, unavoidable and factors that help to enhance the effectiveness of oral corrective feedback, one type of negative feedback given to learners’ erroneous utterances, are worth investigating.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 14</span><div class="page_container" data-page="14">

In the classroom, teachers, as the dominant feedback providers, have their own beliefs and intentions for the practice of oral corrective feedback and learners, in the meantime, have their own attitudes and preferences for these corrective moves. Previous studies in the field of oral corrective feedback have at times revealed a mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and students’ expectations for classroom error treatment (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Rahimi, 2010; Elwood & Bode, 2014; Le, 2018). This mismatch, according to Nunan (1987), is “one of the most serious blocks to learning” (p. 177). Thus, in a learner-centered classroom, it is recommended that “the best decision on how to correct learners’ errors effectively, which errors to correct, when to do so, and who should do it, can be made only with a thorough analysis of the needs and expectations of the learners” (Oladejo, 1993, p. 85).

One key factor that can influence learners’ responses to corrective feedback is personality (Sheen, 2011). One major aspect of personality that has been most researched in language learning is extraversion (Dornyei, 2015). Extraversion reflects a continuum concerning “differences in preference for social interaction and lively activity” (McCrae & Costa, 2003, p. 46), which means learners with different level of extraversion vary in their level of warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking and positive emotion and this may lead to their varied preferences for communicative classroom practices. Also, regardless of inconsistent and incomprehensive findings from previous studies, statistically significant correlations were found between extraversion and different aspects of oral performance and oral production (Busch, 1982; Oya et al., 2004; Gan, 2008; Zafar et al., 2017). All of the above lead to the assumption that extraversion is an influential factor that can mediate learners’ preferences towards oral corrective feedback.

In the area of corrective feedback, various studies have been conducted in a quest for the answers to five fundamental questions raised by Hendrickson (1978) concerning whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected or in

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 15</span><div class="page_container" data-page="15">

other words, the necessity, timing of oral corrective feedback, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types. Yet in terms of learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings were found and only a few studies were conducted among high school students’ (Astuti, 2018). Moreover, the amount of literature exploring the impact of extraversion on learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback seems to be very limited (Ha et al., 2021). All of these manifest a lack of empirical research on the topic, especially in the context of Vietnamese high schools and thus there is a literature gap to be filled.

1.2. Rationale for the study

The researcher’s interest to do research on oral corrective feedback, firstly, comes from the actual teaching and learning practices in Truong Dinh High school where she has been working as an English teacher. Truong Dinh is a public high school located in a small town of Tien Giang province. English teaching and learning practices in this school share the same characteristics as the Vietnamese public school context mentioned above with exclusive use of grammar-translation method and a test-driven nature that may help students to achieve high scores on reading, grammar and vocabulary tests but they may not be able to communicate successfully in the target language. As for Grade 10 students, the population of this present study, as an English teacher teaching several Grade 10 classes in three consecutive years, the researcher notices that Grade 10 students normally do not have many communicative lessons in Grade 9 as they have to cope with the entrance examination to upper secondary school with a written-format English test. Besides, though Grade 10 students are given two lessons per week for listening and speaking practice, some teachers sacrifice some of these lessons for lexico-grammar and reading comprehension exercises to help them do well in the written tests, which leads to the situation that most of them are not used to communicating in English and usually make oral errors. Consequently, when there are

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 16</span><div class="page_container" data-page="16">

communicative lessons, oral error treatment is unavoidable to help students communicate better in the target language.

In her practice of oral error treatment in the classroom, the researcher notices two situations that can make her corrective moves not able to yield expected results. First, students’ attitudes and preferences for oral corrective feedback are sometimes different from what the researcher believes. Secondly, some students are more easily to be emotionally affected by the act of correction than their counterparts. These situations infer that it is necessary to carry out an investigation into learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback as well as affective factors that influence these preferences to provide emotionally effective feedback that can encourage learners to speak confidently and freely. Also, among different affective factors that can lead to varied behaviors and attitudes of learners, extraversion can influence learners’ preferences for classroom interactions and external stimuli; if corrective moves are not sensitive enough to these preferences, they can impede students’ attempts to communicate in the target language. Because of all the reasons mentioned above, the researcher is motivated to explore learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and the relationship between extraversion and these preferences. Moreover, learners’ preferences are examined in all five main aspects of oral corrective feedback including whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected as these aspects are in some cases inter-related to each other (Lee, 1990; Mohseni & Edalat Pour, 2012) and the researcher also wants to provide a relatively accurate and complete understanding of the population.

1.3. Research objectives and research questions

Given all the above factors, the present study aims to investigate Truong Dinh High school’s Grade 10 students’ levels of extraversion and their preferences for oral error correction in terms of necessity, timing, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types. In addition, the study aims to explore the relationship between

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 17</span><div class="page_container" data-page="17">

students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for these five main aspects of oral corrective feedback.

Based on the purposes stated above, three research questions are addressed in this study:

Research question 1: What are Truong Dinh High school’s Grade 10 students’ levels of extraversion?

Research question 2: What are Truong Dinh High school’s Grade 10 students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of necessity, timing, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types?

Research question 3: Are there statistically significant correlations between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of necessity, timing, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types? 1.4. Scope of the study

The present study makes an attempt to explore learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and the relationship between students’ level of extraversion and their preferences. In the scope of this paper, oral corrective feedback is defined as negative feedback given to learners’ erroneous words, grammatical items or speech acts arising in a communicative activity; extraversion is examined as a continuum within the framework of the Five Factor Model by McCrae and John (1992) and five aspects of oral corrective feedback under investigation are necessity, timing, feedback strategies, feedback providers and errors types. The participants are non-English majored students in a public-sector high school, but only grade 10 students were selected for the study because they usually make errors when they speak and are more eager and willing to participate in communicative activities than Grade 11 and Grade 12 students.

1.5. Significance of the study

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 18</span><div class="page_container" data-page="18">

The study is supposed to have theoretical and practical implications. Firstly, the study contributes to the current literature by making an attempt to fill a research gap concerning learners’ preferences for error correction and the relationship between extraversion and learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in Vietnamese public high school contexts. Secondly, findings from this research are hoped to trigger teachers’ self-reflection for better implementation of oral corrective feedback in communicative classrooms.

1.6. Organization of the research

The present study includes five chapters.

Chapter 1, Introduction, describes the study’s context and addresses the two research questions that guide the whole study. Chapter 2 is a review of relevant theories on errors, error correction, corrective feedback and its five fundamental aspects, extraversion and its role in language learning; also, findings from previous studies are presented to identify the research gap. Chapter 3 is a presentation of the research methodology in which the research site, participants, research instruments, reliability and validity issues, data collection procedures and data analytical framework are clearly described. Chapter 4 deals with data analysis and the discussion of findings. Chapter 5 summarizes all the key finding with a discussion on the implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 19</span><div class="page_container" data-page="19">

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter aims to provide readers with the theoretical framework underpinning the present study. The concept of errors and different approaches to error treatment are first discussed, followed by a review of literature on the definition of corrective feedback and five main issues concerning oral corrective feedback including whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected. Afterwards, the literature on learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback is reviewed. The next session presents the literature on the concept of extraversion in psychology and in second language learning (L2). Empirical studies on learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback given the extraversion continuum are discussed and a research gap is drawn out.

2.1. Error Correction in the foreign language classroom 2.1.1. The Concepts of Errors

According to Hendrickson (1978), an error is “an utterance, form, or structure that a particular language teacher deems unacceptable because of its inappropriate use or its absence in real-life discourse” (p. 387). Given the same context with similar conditions, the deviant linguistic forms including words, grammatical items or speech acts, would not, under any circumstances, be used by fluent or native speakers of the target language (Lennon, 1991; Richards & Schmidt, 2010). Errors are considered evidence of the learners’ incomplete linguistics knowledge, which means they can give indications of the learners’ language competence. Learners make errors because they do not know what the correct form is or in other words, their accumulation of the language knowledge is not enough to prevent them from misusing particular linguistics items (Corder, 1967; Ellis, 1997). Researchers also emphasized the significant role of contexts when defining an error. Lennon (1991) stated that errors “will vary according to situation, reference group, interlocutor, mode, style, production pressures” (p. 32).

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 20</span><div class="page_container" data-page="20">

As stated by Brown (2007), there can possibly be different sources of errors. Among these, two major sources of errors are thought to be the negative interlingual transfer from the learners’ native language and the intralingual transfer during the process of acquiring the target language. Besides, errors can also result from the context of communication including learners’ classroom, teaching practices or the use of language materials in formal schooling environment or the social situation where untutored learning happens. Other sources of errors can be psycholinguistic, cognitive techniques and various affective variables.

In general, many researchers agreed on the vital role of errors in language teaching and learning. Errors signify learners’ gaps in their linguistic knowledge. They reflect learners’ attempt in their acquisition of the language. Moreover, errors can show teachers how effectively their approaches and materials can assist learners’ language learning. Teachers can also acknowledge learners’ progress in their language acquisition (Corder, 1967; Ellis, 1997).

2.1.2. Error Treatment of Different Approaches to Foreign Language Teaching When it comes to different methods and approaches to foreign language teaching, the responses to errors also vary. How teachers respond to learners’ linguistic errors in the classroom is referred to as error treatment.

Dating back into the late nineteenth century, Grammar Translation method focuses on the study of grammar of the target language, helping learners read and appreciate foreign literature with little attention given to listening, speaking and pronunciation. On making errors, learners are provided with the correct answers.

The late nineteenth century saw changes in the approaches to language teaching with more emphasis on language as a means of communication. Direct Method, or the natural approach to language teaching, associates language sounds and meanings with realia, pictures or pantomimes. Direct Method teachers avoid using mother tongue and try to get students to self-correct their errors in the target language.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 21</span><div class="page_container" data-page="21">

Between the 1950s and the 1960s was the emergence and flourishing of the audiolingual method. In the classroom, learners are required to memorize and mimic structural patterns provided by their teachers. Teachers are the models and controllers of what learners are expected to say. Errors are to be avoided at all costs as they hinder the formation of good habits in the target language and if there are errors, they are supposed to be corrected immediately by the teachers.

The late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed the advent of Hymes (1971)’s concept of communicative competence that put emphasis on the appropriate use of language for communication purposes in certain cultural and social situations. Based on the perspective, communicative language teaching highlights the interdependence between language and communication. Errors of form are expected to be tolerated during fluency-based activities and they can be corrected later in accuracy-based activities.

It can be drawn that in the spoken foreign language classroom, the responses to oral errors are dependent on which pedagogical approach is embraced. When teachers adopt a meaning-focused approach to their teaching practice, it is the effective and successful negotiation of meaning and communication that counts. For researchers who are supportive of this approach, explicit corrections to learners’ errors are considered detrimental to learners’ language acquisition (Krashen, 1982). On the other hand, form-focused instruction calls attention to formal aspects of language and linguistic features arising from communicative needs, which can indicate the gap between the language ideal and learners’ current interlanguage (Klapper, 2006). When it comes to error correction in the classroom, corrective feedback is a matter for debate that originates from the key differences of these two approaches (Zhang & Rahimi, 2014).

2.2. Corrective Feedback in the foreign language classroom 2.2.1. Definitions of Corrective Feedback

According to Sheen (2011), “in the second language acquisition (SLA) literature, ‘corrective feedback’ has been used as an umbrella term to cover negative

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 22</span><div class="page_container" data-page="22">

feedback, error treatment, and error correction occurring in both natural and instructional settings” (p. 1).

In language teaching, feedback “refers to comments or other information that learners receive concerning their success on learning tasks or tests, either from the teacher or other persons” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 217). Feedback can facilitate L2 learning by drawing learners’ attention to the problematic aspects of their interlanguage and by giving them chances to reflect on their production or understanding of the target language (Gass & Mackey, 2015). Feedback can be positive or negative. According to Ellis (2009), positive feedback confirms the correctness of learners’ employment of the target language while negative feedback is given in response to the inadequacy, inappropriateness or the lack of veracity of learners’ utterances. In communication, feedback can be provided either affectively or cognitively, which means by either kinetic or linguistic devices (Vigil & Oller, 1976).

Corrective feedback is one type of negative feedback. According to Chaudron (1977), corrective feedback can be “any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance” (p. 31). Later, as influenced by the emergence of affective filter hypothesis and learner-centered approaches to language education, the practice of corrective feedback in the classroom is not only under teachers’ control but also performed by the learners themselves (Chaudron, 1988) or by other students (Sheen, 2011). Also, the focus of corrective feedback is both on the linguistic errors or ill-formedness (Ellis, 2009) and on the negotiation of meaning as well (Sheen, 2011). To put it simply, corrective feedback refers to “any indication to a learner that his/her use of the target language is incorrect” (Lightbown & Spada, 2003, p. 172). In communicative classrooms with form-focused instruction, oral corrective feedback is given to learners’ erroneous words, grammatical items or speech acts arising in an oral activity with a view to getting their errors noticed and corrected.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 23</span><div class="page_container" data-page="23">

In the current study, the term “error correction” or “error treatment” is also used to refer to the practice of oral corrective feedback in the classroom.

2.2.2. Five Fundamental Issues of Oral Corrective Feedback

In the area of corrective feedback, the main issues of discussion include the necessity of corrective feedback, the timing of oral corrective feedback, oral corrective feedback strategies, feedback providers and types of errors. These issues have been addressed in an effort to answer the five fundamental questions raised by Hendrickson (1978) including whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected.

2.2.2.1. The Necessity of Oral Corrective Feedback.

Many researchers have been in favour of the idea that corrective feedback can assist L2 learning in many ways. L2 learning is a process in which learners make continuous attempts to form, test and revise their hypotheses for the target language. Errors may occur while learners try to develop their interlanguage towards the target, and this is where corrective feedback can make a significant contribution. As discussed by Corder (1967) and Doughty and Williams (1998), it is indefinable and unviable to let learners deal with the errors by themselves and thus, they need help from a competent speaker of the target language to make their errors noticeable. Also, once the errors have been signaled by corrective feedback, learners can discover their problematic behavior and be ready to form an adequate and correct concept or rule in the target language (Corder, 1981). From a focus-on-form perspective, corrective feedback is, as stated by Long (1996), “facilitative of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts” (p. 414). The lack of corrective feedback can be considered as negative reinforcement as learners may misunderstand that their language use is faultless. However, when teachers pay too much attention to errors and interrupt learners every time they commit errors, learners can be obsessed with malformations and this can destroy their confidence in using the target language to

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 24</span><div class="page_container" data-page="24">

communicate (Vigil and Oller, 1976). Given the fact that learners may be emotionally affected by corrective feedback in a negative way, to increase the effectiveness of corrective feedback, it is suggested that “teachers should ascertain their students’ attitudes towards CF, appraise them of the value of CF, and negotiate agreed goals for CF with them” (Ellis, 2009, p.14).

2.2.2.2. The Timing of Oral Corrective Feedback.

The second important issue concerning oral corrective feedback posed by Hendrickson (1978) focuses on the timing for error treatment. For the most part, it is challenging for teachers to decide when errors should be ignored and when they should be corrected. In the classrooms with oral activities involved, teachers often have to make a choice between giving corrective feedback immediately when errors come up and delaying error correction until later time.

Back to the time in which audio-lingual method was in full swing, it was obligatory that learners’ errors be corrected immediately as flawless replication of the model language was the expected outcome. Many researchers who regard making errors as an unavoidable and significant phenomenon in language acquisition, however, rejected this view. They argued that it is affectively and cognitively acceptable to tolerate some deviant linguistic items in order not to discourage learners from communicating in the target language (Corder, 1967; Hendrickson, 1978; Krashen, 1982). Walker (1973) added that the practice of pointing out every single error which learners commit "forces them to expend so much effort on details that they lose the overall ability to use language" (p. 103). Research has been carried out to find out the propitious pedagogical moments to call attention to the formal aspects. In general, with an underlying view that learners with limited linguistic knowledge can still become successful communicators, teachers are encouraged to tolerate learners’ errors in fluency-oriented activities. In this case, delayed feedback can be more appropriate. During accuracy-oriented activities, however, it is suggested that errors be noted and

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 25</span><div class="page_container" data-page="25">

corrected immediately. Then, the timing of error correction can be dependent on the aims and objectives of the activities that teachers want to achieve. According to Scrivener (2005), “if the objective is accuracy, then immediate correction is likely to be useful; if the aim is fluency, then lengthy, immediate correction that diverts from the flow of speaking is less appropriate” (p. 299). Also, researchers explore different exact timing for delayed correction including at the end of learners’ utterances (Elcin & Ozturk, 2016), at the end of the speaking task (Papangkorn, 2015) or at the end of the lesson (Gomez Arguelleset al., 2019). However, it is considered almost impossible to reach an agreement on whether immediate and delayed corrective feedback is more effective, as Kelly (2006) put it, “there is no one simple answer to the question of when to correct: it will depend on many interrelated factors including learner sensitivities, learning situation, learning purpose or task type” (para .5).

2.2.2.3. Oral Corrective Feedback Strategies.

In their observational study in 1997, Lyster and Ranta noted six types of oral treatment used by teachers in communicative interaction with their students in four meaning-based classrooms including explicit correction, recast, metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation and clarification. Ranta and Lyster (2007) later divided these six techniques of oral treatment into two categories of reformulation and prompts. The former consists of explicit correction and recast as these two types of feedback “supply learners with target reformulations of their nontarget output” (p. 152). Metalinguistic feedback, repetition, elicitation and clarification requests belong to the category of prompts that “push learners to self-repair” (p. 152). The model was then developed and reconceptualised in the study of Sheen and Ellis (2011). According to the researchers, the main distinction for oral corrective feedback strategies can be based on the continuum of explicitness and implicitness (i.e., whether there is overt indication of ill-formedness), and the issue of input-providing (i.e., learners are provided with the correct form) and output-prompting (i.e., learners are supplied with

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 26</span><div class="page_container" data-page="26">

clues that help them retrieve the correct form by themselves). Sheen and Ellis’s taxonomy of oral corrective feedback strategies is presented in the table below.

Explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation

prompting

Output-Repetition Clarification requests

Metalinguistic clue Elicitation Paralinguistic signal

The definitions of each oral feedback strategy are discussed in the following table, drawing from the studies of Panova and Lyster, 2002; Ellis, 2009; Sheen, 2011; Sheen and Ellis, 2011. Examples are also provided to show teachers and learners’ utterances.

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 27</span><div class="page_container" data-page="27">

Table 0.2

Oral corrective feedback strategies

Conversational recasts

T reformulates L’s erroneous utterances when there is a communicative breakdown.

“L: How much weigh? T: What?

L: How weight are you? T: How much do I weigh?”

(Sheen, 2011, p. 3)

Repetition

T repeats L’s utterances with different means of stress to highlight the errors and elicit

the correct form from the students.

“L: I will showed you. T: I will SHOWED you.”

(Ellis, 2009, p. 9)

Clarification requests

T uses phrases such as ”Pardon me?” or “I don’t understand” as indicators of

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 28</span><div class="page_container" data-page="28">

with metalinguistic explanation

errors, provides them with a correct answer and gives

explanation to help L understand why their utterances were erroneous.

T: The fox was clever. You should use the definite article

‘the’ because fox has been mentioned.”

(Sheen, 2011, p. 3)

Metalinguistic clue

T gives an explanation or asksa Yes-No question and

waits for students’ correction.

self-“L: He kiss her. T: You need past tense.”

(Sheen, 2011, p. 4)

Elicitation

T partly repeats L’s utterances with pausing or a

Wh-question and waits for L’s self-correction.

“L: I’ll come if it will not rain. T: I’ll come if it ……?”

indicate past)” (Ellis, 2009, p. 9) Note. T = Teacher; L = Learner

Although there has been an abundance of observational and experimental studies on the efficacy of these oral corrective feedback strategies, there have not been any conclusive evidence of which strategy proves the most effective to promote learning (Ellis, 2009; Sheen, 2011). Also, learners can benefit differently from a certain type of corrective feedback. Therefore, it is necessary that teachers “develop the intuition, through experience and solid eclectic theoretical foundations, for ascertaining what kind of corrective feedback is appropriate at a given moment” (Brown, 2007, p. 280).

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 29</span><div class="page_container" data-page="29">

2.2.2.4. Oral Corrective Feedback Providers.

In terms of error correctors, three main sources of corrective feedback providers are teachers, peers and the learners themselves.

Traditionally, teacher correction has been dominating classroom interaction and error correction procedures. Most of the time, teachers take the responsibility for supplying learners with appropriate information, examples, explanation or even the model answer as well as deciding on the correctness of learners’ utterances in their process of making hypotheses for the target language (Corder, 1973).

In a modern educational setting, the focus of classroom practice has been shifted onto learners and learner-learner interaction, which means learners play a more active role in the classroom. Peer correction and self-correction have gained increasing concerns. Peer correction occurs when learners correct their partners’ errors, which can not only inform teachers of learners’ current language level but also promote cooperative learning and help bolster their egos (Mendez & Cruz, 2012). However, according to Lyster, Saito and Sato (2013), without teacher’ guidance on how to provide appropriate feedback in communicative activities, there can be problems concerning peer correction. Most of the time, as feedback providers, learners hardly point out linguistic errors in their partners’ utterances whereas as feedback receivers, learners usually question their partners’ ability to correct them and are afraid of face-losing. Self-correction, on the other hand, can help them save face while encourage learners’ autonomy (Mendez & Cruz, 2012). However, one possible problem with self-correction is that learners’ incomplete linguistic knowledge may hinder their ability to recognize and correct their errors.

2.2.2.5. Oral Error Types.

Researchers adopt various approaches to error categorisation. For example, Corder (1971) distinguished between overt and covert errors. Overt errors are ungrammatical errors at sentential level whereas covertly erroneous utterances are

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 30</span><div class="page_container" data-page="30">

grammatically correct but not interpretable considered at supra-sentential level. Quite similarly, Burt and Kiparsky (1972) made a difference between local and global errors. While local errors are subtle violations from the standard forms which in overall do not hinder communication, global errors prevent the proper exchanging of information and thus hold back communicative purpose achievement. Hendrickson (1978) suggested three meaningful types of errors including “errors that impair communication significantly; errors that have highly stigmatizing effects on the listener or reader; and errors that occur frequently in students’ speech and writing” (p. 392). These categorizations are not necessarily based on linguistic level or clear-cut criteria, but on error gravity, or the seriousness of errors in the eyes of correctors, in which errors are considered “relative rather than absolute terms, with reactions also varying according to age and academic discipline” (Lee, 1990, p. 62). A more clear-cut and influential way to categorize oral errors was proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997). The researchers addressed four types of oral errors including phonological, syntactic, lexical and discourse errors, respectively concerning with pronunciation, grammar, word choice and the coherence of the utterance within a communicative context.

Regardless of the approach to error categorization, it is always a difficult decision to make for teachers on the amount of errors to be corrected or the degree and frequency of error treatment practice in the classroom. One suggestion for this problem has been a focused approach to error correction (Han, 2002). According to Sheen (2011), focused corrective feedback is “intensive corrective feedback that repeatedly targets one or a very limited number of linguistic features” while unfocused corrective feedback is “extensive corrective feedback that targets a range of grammatical structures” (p. 8). In the classroom setting, it is considered more effective to correct only a few oral errors of particular linguistic features than to point out all the problematic items (Ellis, 2009).

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 31</span><div class="page_container" data-page="31">

2.2.2.6. Summary.

On reviewing literature on oral corrective feedback, there has not always been conclusive evidence on the necessity of oral corrective feedback in the classroom. Furthermore, it is risky to jump to any conclusion on the best timing for error treatment, the most appropriate feedback providers, the most effective feedback techniques and the most suitable oral errors to be corrected. Also, as the main practitioners of error correction the classroom, teachers have their own choices concerning these five main issues of oral corrective feedback and learners, as the receivers and sometimes feedback providers, have their own perceptions and preferences as well. Furthermore, studies have noted the mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and learners’ preferences towards classroom error treatment (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Rahimi, 2010; Elwood & Bode, 2014; Le, 2018) and the mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and learners’ expectations can have a disastrous impact on learning (Nunan, 1987). Hence it is important to examine learners’ preferences for various aspects of oral corrective feedback in order to enhance the efficacy of oral error treatment in the classroom.

2.2.3. Learners’ Preferences for Oral Corrective Feedback

Generally, preference is defined as “a greater interest in or desire for somebody/something than somebody/something else” (“Preference”). Bohner and Wanke (2002) consider preferences as factors that determine behavior and can lead to the formation of behavioral routines. Thus it is suggested that preferences are highly influential over language learners (Kara, 2009).

There have been an abundance of studies trying to throw light on learners’ preferences for error correction. Yet, more interest has been directed to corrective feedback in writing (Hyland, 1998; Jones & Wang, 2004; Lee, 2005; Rahimi, 2010; Elwood & Bode, 2014; Ranjbar & Zamanian, 2014; Shokrpour & Moslehi, 2015;

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 32</span><div class="page_container" data-page="32">

Irwin, 2017) while learners’ preferences for oral error correction may have received less attention.

On reviewing various descriptive and experimental studies on learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in various educational settings, there can be some noticeable issues.

First, most of the studies on oral corrective feedback were conducted with adult learners; few studies investigate secondary school students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback. This is supported by findings from a systematic review by Astuti (2018) with only 10 out of 1009 articles on preferences for oral corrective feedback published from 2008 to 2017 on two databases including ERIC and Springer Exemplar explore secondary school students’ preferences.

Secondly, research on students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of whether, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected generally shows inconsistent results. Though most learners tend to appreciate the necessity of corrective feedback and usually show preferences for being orally corrected (Katayama, 2007; Azad & Kalam, 2016; Le, 2018; Astuti, 2018; Gamblo, 2019), in a study by Agudo (2012), error correction is thought to discourage learning as some students feel embarrassed when they are orally corrected in front of the class. In terms of the timing of error correction, the participants in Ananda et al. (2017)’s study favored immediate correction while in Unsal Sakiroglu (2020)’s study, most learners agreed that delayed correction was their preferable timing. As for oral feedback strategies, clarification requests are considered the most effective correction techniques in Sarra and Houda (2018)’s research while in Kazemi et al. (2013)’s study, learners preferred a combination of repetition, explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation or metalinguistic clues. In terms of feedback providers, most learners wanted to be corrected by their teachers (Gamblo, 2019); in other studies, learners preferred self-correction (Septiana et al., 2016) or peer correction (Katayama, 2007). In addition,

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 33</span><div class="page_container" data-page="33">

there is a strong need from students for their grammatical errors to be corrected (Oladejo, 1993) while other learners think phonological errors should be given the highest attention (Le, 2018). That means learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback vary due to various factors, for example, “learners’ cultural backgrounds, previous and current language learning experiences, or proficiency levels” (Lyster et al., 2013, p. 7) or individual difference variables (Sheen, 2011).

Finally, among various studies on learners’ preferences for corrective feedback, there is a growing number of recent studies that investigate the possible relationship between individual differences and learners’ preferences. These studies attempt to find out whether individual differences account for learners’ preferences and whether they help to explain learners’ varied preferences towards oral corrective feedback in a classroom setting. Some of the individual difference factors having been explored in such studies include language aptitude (Sheen, 2011), proficiency level (Kazemi et al., 2013), extraversion (Kelahsarayi, 2014), age and gender (Motlagh, 2015), anxiety level (Fadilah et al., 2017), learning styles (Tasdemir & Arslan, 2018) and gender, motivation and extraversion (Ha et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the number of such studies is limited and the impact of individual difference factors on learners’ preferences still lacks conclusive evidence, which suggests that whether individual differences can shape learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback is still open to debate.

In Vietnamese EFL contexts, studies on learners’ beliefs, attitudes and preferences for oral corrective feedback mostly focus on adult learners at tertiary level (Hoang, 2009; Thai & Bui, 2012; Nguyen, 2014; Dao, 2018; Le, 2018; Nguyen & Newton, 2019; Luu, 2020). In her attempt to search for studies that investigate high school students’ preferences for oral corrective feedback, the researcher saw a paucity of research on this domain. A very small number of such studies that she could find were conducted by Do (2011), Ha and Nguyen (2021) and Nguyen and Luu (2021).

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 34</span><div class="page_container" data-page="34">

The study by Do (2011) explored the attitudes of 120 Grade 10 students in a boarding high school towards teachers’ oral error correction in terms of the necessity, timing, feedback providers, feedback techniques and error types. The study adopted a mixed methods design with questionnaires and follow-up interviews. It was found that most students understood the necessity of oral corrective feedback and their most preferred timing, feedback providers, feedback techniques and error types were respectively immediate timing, teacher correction, metalinguistic clues and grammatical errors. One issue that may need consideration can be the correction techniques mentioned that adopted from Edge (1989) and Lyster and Mori (2006), as there are recent updated models of correction strategies suggested by different researchers up to now.

Ha and Nguyen (2021) conducted a study on teachers and students’ beliefs about the targets and sources of oral corrective feedback with the participation of 250 Grade 10 to Grade 12 students and 24 teachers. Data was collected with questionnaires and follow-up interviews. In terms of students’ beliefs, the study highlighted that the students were positive about the correction of all types of errors including less important errors and they also preferred teacher correction to self-correction or peer correction. Interestingly, there were mismatches between students and teachers’ beliefs in that teachers preferred a selective approach to error correction and they highly valued the role of students as the main feedback providers. Yet the study only explored two main aspects of oral corrective feedback including the types of errors categorised according to error gravity and feedback providers.

Another recent study on high school students’ perceptions of corrective feedback and their preferences for feedback on pronunciation was carried out by Nguyen and Luu (2021) among 97 Grade 10 to Grade 12 students. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were data collection instruments. It was found that students had positive perceptions about the significance of teachers’ corrective feedback on

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 35</span><div class="page_container" data-page="35">

their pronunciation; they preferred the correction of all their errors and errors that the whole class made, both delayed and immediate timing and their most preferred correction technique was explicit correction. Students’ preferences were found to be inconsistent with their teachers’ beliefs as teachers’ usual practices of pronunciation error correction paid more attention to selective individual errors, immediate timing and recasts.

2.3. Extraversion and Language Learning 2.3.1. Extraversion as a Psychological Dimension

The terms of extraversion and introversion are thought to have been first introduced by Jung in 1921. The researcher looked at human behaviours as habits and patterns and extraversion and introversion are considered attitude types. According to Jung (1971), extroverts are the types of people that pay more attention to the outer world and external objects while introverts put more focus on their internal world and subjective contents. The categorization of human personality into types, however, has been a controversial issue as it fails to describe a large crowd that possesses the characteristics of both types.

In 1947, Eysenck introduced his concept of extraversion as a continuum with specific traits (i.e., inner dispositions that make up stable behavioral patterns). Some of the traits of a typical extrovert include being sociable, excitement seeking and the need to make friends and take chances; a typical introvert, on the other hand, tends to be reserved, quiet, think first and prefer their own company (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964, p. 8). One core feature of extraversion in his model is the threshold for arousal; extroverts may have more and faster responses than introverts in performance tasks and social interactions (Wilt & Revelle, 2009).

In the scope of this paper, extraversion will be examined as a broad domain within the framework of the Five Factor Model (FFM; Digman, 1990) defined by McCrae and John (1992). The FFM is considered “one of the most popular approaches

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 36</span><div class="page_container" data-page="36">

in the social sciences for categorizing personality” (Thomas & Segal, 2006, p. 51) and an increasing number of research on psychology in education have been structured around the FFM (Zeidner, 2009). The FFM has a hierarchical structure. It consists of five primary dimensions or five broad domains of human personality including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (McCrae & John, 1992) and each domain is defined by six traits or six facets. The six facets associated with Extraversion include three interpersonal traits of Warmth, Gregariousness and Assertiveness and three temperamental traits of Activity, Excitement Seeking and Positive Emotion (McCrae & Costa, 1992). Based on the six facets, McCrae and Costa (2003) describe people with high level of extraversion as friendly, outgoing, assertive, talkative, enthusiastic, active, energetic individuals who are easier to feel happy than people with low level of extraversion. People with low level of extraversion, meanwhile, can be seen as reserved, independent and less energetic individuals who enjoy their own company, respond less strongly to positive stimulation and are less likely to take risks. Extraversion in the FFM reflects a spectrum concerning people’s tendency to get involved in social interaction and lively activities. People in the middle of the extraversion spectrum are ambiverts who possess characteristics of both extraverts and introverts and are considered “the most normal and healthy people” (Conklin, 1923, p. 369).

In the present study, the term “extraversion” is used to refer to the continuum; the word “extroverts”, “extraverted” or “extroverted” refer to or describe individuals with high level of extraversion and vice versa, the term “introverts” or “introverted” are used for individuals with low level of extraversion.

2.3.2. Extraversion as an Affective Factor in Classroom Setting

Extraversion, as one aspect of personality, “may play out its role in education by influencing social interactions in the classroom, teacher-student rapport, students’ self-

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 37</span><div class="page_container" data-page="37">

esteem, prosocial behaviour, motivation and classroom conduct, and cognitive performance” (Zeidner, 2009, p. 733).

In language learning, high level of extraversion is mostly viewed as “a factor having a positive effect on the development of L2 basic interpersonal skills” (Ellis, 2008, p. 541) since extraverted learners are “linguistically more active outside the classroom than the introverts, thus increasing the amount of input (Krashen, 1982) and comprehensible language output (Swain, 1985)” (Dewaele & Furnham, 1999, p. 520). Many researchers agreed with the idea that extroverted learners are more likely to have better communicative abilities in comparison to introverted learners who may not be willing to initiate classroom interactions and take risks with their language (Robinson et al., 1994; Hurd, 2002). In the meantime, learners with low level of extraversion may perform better in tasks that require the internal processes of information or the interconnecting of materials (Condon & Ruth-Sahd, 2013) as they possess “greater ability in consolidating their learning, better study habits, and lower distractibility” (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1970, as cited in Zeidner, 2009, p. 737).

The possible impact of extraversion on speaking skills and different aspects of oral performance and oral production has been explored and different conclusions were drawn. For example, Busch (1982)’s study revealed a significant negative correlation between extraversion and pronunciation accuracy, which contradicts findings in Hassan (2001)’s study. Also, in the research of Gan (2008), there were no statistically significant relationships between extraversion and accuracy, the number of words, number of turns, number of initiating and responding turns, and length of utterances in learners’ speaking activities but a positive correlation between extraversion and hesitation phenomenon was found. The study of Oya et al. (2004) revealed a positive relationship between extraversion and their global impression scores while in a study by Azis (2010), no statistically significant correlation was found between extraversion level and Iraqi learners’ oral performance components, fluency, accuracy, complexity,

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 38</span><div class="page_container" data-page="38">

pronunciation, and overall oral production. In terms of speaking performance, the study by Souzandehfar et al. (2014) showed no relationship between extraversion and learners’ speaking scores whereas a recent study by Zafar et al. (2017) suggested a positive correlation between these two variables.

2.3.3. Summary

In terms of psychology, people all have an intrinsic preference for extraversion and their level of extraversion varies along the extraversion-introversion spectrum. According to Thompson (2012), the main distinction between people of high and low level of extraversion lies in “the source of their personal energy, their sense of boundaries and their comfort zone” (p. 6). Extraversion can influence people’s preferences and responses to external stimuli and thus affect their attitudes and social behaviours.

In terms of language education, existing literature indicates that extraversion can have an impact on classroom interactions and learning behaviours; learners with different level of extraversion shows different preferences for a particular kind of task assigned. Also, studies have been conducted on the possible influence of extraversion on learners’ oral performance and oral production; however, findings from these studies are inconsistent and not always in agreement with the views of applied linguists and educators on the relationship between extraversion and language learning.

2.4. Extraversion and Corrective Feedback

It can be said that extraversion has not been fully examined as an affective factor that can mediate learners’ preferences for corrective feedback in the classroom; not to mention that the limited number of studies on this on this domain focus on corrective feedback in writing. Some of such papers include Jones and Wang (2004)’s study on extroverted and introverted learners’ attitudes towards grammar correction of written errors. Among the 16 personality types determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which is based mostly on Jung (1971)’s theories, students of the four types

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 39</span><div class="page_container" data-page="39">

INTJ, INTP, ISTJ, and ISTP in which “I” stands for Introvert show no preferences for having their grammatical errors corrected. Another study by Ranjbar and Zamanian (2014) examining the effects of extraversion and introversion on students’ opinions for error correction in writing classes reveals that there is no significant relationship between personality types and students’ preferred correctors, methods of correcting and types of errors. Shokrpour and Moslehi (2015)’s research on the relationship between extraversion and introversion and two correction types of self-correction and teacher correction in a writing context comes to a conclusion that being an extrovert or introvert has no significant effect on students’ preferences for corrective feedback.

As for the possible impact of extraversion on oral corrective feedback, Kim and Nassaji (2017) conducted a study on the impact of extraversion level on the act of focus-on-form arising from a communicative activity. It was found that in the advanced class, learners with higher level of extraversion were more likely to participate in corrective feedback episodes and in the upper-intermediate class, learners with lower level of extraversion had better uptake, or immediate responses to teachers’ correction.

In terms of the relationship between extraversion and learners’ preferences for oral error treatment, very few studies were conducted.

One of such studies was carried out by Kelahsarayi in 2014 among 300 majored students at three Iranian universities. Two questionnaires were employed, including Eysenck Personality Inventory to measure learners’ level of extraversion and a questionnaire to determine learners’ preferences for error treatment including the issues of whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test values indicated no statistically significant differences between the two groups’ preferences for these five aspects of error correction. However, the researcher did not clarify the sampling method and the reliability and validity issues. The instrument that was used to measure learners’ level of extraversion could only show their tendency towards extraversion and where their

English-Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackEnglish-Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackEnglish-Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackEnglish-Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackExploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 40</span><div class="page_container" data-page="40">

scores stand on a whole continuum; thus the act of pigeon-holing participants into only two discrete types of extroverts and introverts with no further explanation about the scoring and interpretation process raised the question of the validity of this study’s findings.

With similar research purposes, Sarra and Houda (2018) made an attempt to explore extravert and introvert learners’ attitudes towards and preferences for oral error correction. The study was conducted within 135 adult EFL students in Algerian tertiary context, including 109 females and 26 males ranging from 19 to 37 years old. They were categorized into two groups of extroverts and introverts in the main study using Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and their attitudes and preferences were collected in a semi-structured interview and Error Correction Questionnaire. It was concluded that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups’ attitudes towards and preferences for oral corrective feedback in terms of whether, when, how, by whom and which errors should be corrected, aligning with those from Kelahsarayi (2014)’s study. However, because the instrument used to measure learners’ level of extraversion in this research were similar to the instrument employed in Kelahsarayi’ s study by nature, the numerical categorization of participants into groups of extroverts and introverts made the findings seem invalid. The researcher also stated that to investigate the relationship between extraversion and learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback, a correlational approach would be more suitable than descriptive-comparative approach employed in this study.

A recent study that examine the effect of extraversion, along with two other variables of gender and motivation, on learners’ beliefs about oral corrective feedback was conducted by Ha et al. (2021) among 250 public high school students in Vietnam. The study adopted a mixed-method design with questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Students’ level of extraversion was determined by one self-rated item in the questionnaire, in which students made a choice between the two provided responses

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:04 PM5:46:04 PM

176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM176Wednesday, June 12, 20245:46:08 PM5:46:08 PM

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

</div>

exploring the relationship between high school efl students level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedback

<b>MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>--- ∞0∞--- </b>

<b>HOANG PHUONG TIEU ANH </b>

<b>EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH SCHOOL EFL STUDENTS' LEVEL </b>

<b>OF EXTRAVERSION AND THEIR PREFERENCES FOR ORAL CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK </b>

<b>Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages Major code: 8 14 01 11 </b>

<b>MASTER THESIS </b>

<b>MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL </b>

<b>Supervisor: Dr. NGUYEN THI THANH HA </b>

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

GIẤY XÁC NHẬN

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

Ý KIẾN CHO PHÉP BẢO VỆ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

176Exploring the relationship between high school EFL students' level of extraversion and their preferences for oral corrective feedbackWednesday, June 12, 2024

Tài liệu liên quan

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về