The Impact of Group Speaking Tasks Via SkypeTM on Introvert and Extrovert Learners’ Oral Proficiency
Volume 3, Issue 5, September 2015, Pages: 102-108
Received: Jul. 20, 2015; Accepted: Jul. 31, 2015; Published: Aug. 12, 2015
Views 4513      Downloads 96
Niloofar Seyed Golshan, Young Researchers and Elite Club, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Language Department, Damavand, Iran
Article Tools
Follow on us
Exactly as we ask others how many languages they can speak, the ultimate goal that the majority of people wish to accomplish when they attempt learning a foreign/second language is the ability to speak that language fluently, and accurately. This desire for improving in the skill of speaking seems to have turned into a need, as well, in the recent years, owing to the globalization of English language, and its significance in the international communications, education, and trade. Meanwhile, it is fair enough to claim not all learners improve in their speaking at the same pace. Better put, given similar pedagogical quality, learners with different personality variables (e.g. risk-taking, reflectiveness, expressiveness, etc.) are prone to progress in speaking proficiency at different rates. Aiming at using technology as a setting for improving speaking proficiency, this study focused on two basic learner variables – introversion and extroversion – to compare its impacts on introvert and extrovert learners. To draw this comparison, 85 intermediate learners from 4 private English institutes in Tehran were selected on a random basis, and a Cambridge PET test was used to homogenize their general English proficiency, which reduced the population to 64. A 57-item version of Eysenck Personality Inventory was also used to diagnose the introversion and extroversion of the population, based on which 56 learners – 28 introvert and 28 extroverts – made it to the study. They were exposed to 51 hours of speaking practice via SKYPETM software, participating in a wide variety of pair and group discussions on diverse topics. After administration of the speaking section of the PET test again, as the post-test, and analyzing the results through Independent Samples T-Test, the introvert learners reported a higher rate of progress in their speaking proficiency that the extrovert learners. This proved that introvert learners could gain noticeable benefits in their oral production in the virtual instructional and interactional settings
Extrovert Learners, Introvert Learners, Oral Proficiency, Virtual Settings
To cite this article
Niloofar Seyed Golshan, The Impact of Group Speaking Tasks Via SkypeTM on Introvert and Extrovert Learners’ Oral Proficiency, Communications. Vol. 3, No. 5, 2015, pp. 102-108. doi: 10.11648/
Barrick, R. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, D. H. (1993). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency of Japanese students. Language Learning, 32, 109-32.
Costa, P. T., &Widiger, A. T. (2002). Personality Disorders and the five- factor model of personality. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Daele, V. S. (2005). The effects of extraversion on L2 oral proficiency. Circulo de LinguisticaAplicada a la Comunicacion, 24, 91-114.
Dewaele, J. M. Furnham, A. (1999). Extroversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 506-544.
Dewaele, J. M. Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: a pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355-365.
Ellis, R. (1999). Understanding second langauge acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological bases of personality. Sprinfield: Thomas.
Fillmore, L. W. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and S. William, (Eds.), Indiviual differences in language ability and language behavior (203-228). Newyork: Academic Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
McCabe, K. O., &Fleeson, W. (2012). What is Extraversion For? Integrating Trait and Motivational Perspectives and Identifying the Purpose of Extraversion. Psychological Science, 23, 1498-1505.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., &Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner: Research in education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Studies in Education.
Rossier, R. (1976). Extroversion-introversion as a significant variable in the learning of oral English as a second language. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Southern California.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the good language learner can teach us? TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. Londan: Erdward Arnold.
Strong, M (1983). Social Styles and the second language acquisition of Spanish speaking kindergartnes. TESOL Quarterly, 17:241-58.
Wakamoto, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extroversion and introversion. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38 (1), 71-81.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186