The Relationship between Personality Traits - ELT Voices

Transcription

ELT Voices- International Journal for Teachers of English
Volume (5), Issue (2), 11-25 (2015)
ISSN Number: 2230-9136
(http://www.eltvoices.in)
The Relationship between Personality Traits and Metacognitive
Listening Strategies among Iranian EFL Learners
1
1
Farid Ghaemi, 2 Farzaneh Sabokrouh
Department of English Language, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2
Department of English Language, Islamic Azad University, Iran
Corresponding E-mail address:
fghaemi2004@yahoo.com
Article Reference:
Ghaemi, F., & Sabokrouh, F. (2014). The Relat ionship between Personality Traits and Metacognitive Listening Strategies
among Iranian EFL Learners . ELT Voices, Volume, 5 (2), 11-25
Abstract: Language learning was varied depending on individual characteristics and variations of language learning ou tcomes was attributed to learner characteristics. On the other hand, when we studied the recent research on second or foreign listening instruction, most of them had emphasized the need for assessing the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy
training in order to improve second language listening comprehension. According to this goal, the research objective wa s to
investigate the relationships of personality traits with metacognitive awareness of listening strategies among Iranian adult
learners of Eng lish utilizing the NEO PI-R and the SILL. 80 participants were students studying English in one of the inst itutes in drawn from four intact classes. The instruments were used including background questionnaire, general English
proficiency test; metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire consists of 21 randomly ordered items related to L2 listening comprehension and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised developed by Costa and McCrae (1992). The analysis of
the data sources fro m the NEO PI-R, the Metacogntive Awareness Listening provided the framework for the discussion on
the correlations of each of the five domains and the 30 facets of the FFM and the metacognitive groups. NEO Personality
Inventory-Revised questionnaire and Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) were ad ministered to see
whether there was any correlation between the students’ use of metacognitive listening strategies and five domains of personality traits. The results displayed that there were relat ionships among variables but some subscales were related and some
other was to some extent, related.
Index Items: Listening Comprehension, Metacognitive Strategies, Personality Traits
1. INTRODUCTION
The experience of learn ing a foreign language, for most learners, is not only a process that is cognitively demanding,
but also emotion-laden. Most second or foreign languages are learned in classroom settings, where there is constant performance evaluation by the instructor and peers. Further, language learning is believed to vary depending on individual
characteristics (Skehan, 1989), and variat ions of language learning outcomes are att ributed to learner characteristics (Dö-
12
Ghaemi & Sabokrouh. (2015). The relationship between personality traits and metacognitive listening strategies among Iranian EFL learners
rnyei, 2006). Further, listening comprehension can be regarded as an important language skill to develop. Listening is a
skill in language proficiency which can directly affect other skills and be affected by several other strategies or techniques
(Safarali & Hamidi, 2012). Language learners are interested in understanding target language (L2) speakers and they want
to be able to access the rich variety of aural and visual L2 texts available via network -based mu ltimed ia (e.g. Dunkel 1991;
Rost 2002, as cited in Vandergrift, 2007). On the other hand, personality makes a difference in how people learn and what
they learn (Myers & Myers, 1980). Carver and Sheier (2000) defined personality as “a dynamic organization of psychophysical systems that create a person’s characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts , and feelings” (p. 5). Personality variables are considered one of the critical indiv idual variables influencing any success of L2 learn ing, as do linguistic, affe ctive,
motivational, and demographic factors (Carrell, Prince, & Astika, 1996). Language learning strategies are believed to help
language learners “make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-d irected, more effective, and more transferable
to new situations” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8).
1.1. Statement of Problem
Listening comprehension may seem relatively straightforward to native language (L1) speakers but it is often a source
of frustration for second and foreign language (L2) learners (e.g., Graham, 2006). Further, little attention has been focused
on systematic practice in L2 listening, i.e.; on the integrated instruction of a sequential repertoire of strategies to help L2
learners develop comprehension skills for real-life listening (Berne, 2004; Vandergrift, 2004).
On the other hand, when we study the recent research on second or foreign listening instruction, most of them have
emphasized the need for assessing the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training in order to improve second languag e
listening comprehension. Further, it is worth mentioning that new approaches for developing an effective L2 listening have
focused their attention on real-life authentic listening by making use of top-down approaches and analyzing the processes
taking place during the instruction (e.g. Buck, 2002; Goh, 2008; Richards, 2002; Vandergrift, 2004).
Despite, recognizing the importance of listening strategies for the development of foreign language proficiency, very
limited studies have been performed in Iran concerning the strategies employed by Iranian EFL learners in relation to listening proficiency levels. some studies found a significant relationship (Harris & Grenfell, 2004), and some studies failed
to find a correlation between the two (Sharp, 2005). Little empirical research has been conducted on the relationships b etween language learners’ personality traits and metacognitive listening strategies, using a measurement tool of the five factor model (FFM) of personality, which is also referred to as the b ig five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in the
English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, although the structure and interpr etation of the FFM was expected to renew interest in the study of the role of pe rsonality factors in language learning (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996).
1.2. Purpose of the Study
The ultimate goal of this study was to examine language learners’ individual differences focusing on the relationships
of personality traits with metacognitive awareness of listening strategies of Iranian university students studying English as a
foreign language. According to this goal, I had the fo llo wing research objective: To investigate the relationships of pers onality traits with metacognitive awareness of listening strategies among Iranian adult learners of Eng lish utilizing the NEO
PI-R and the SILL.
1.3. Significance of the Study
This study provides information on language learners by examin ing the relationships between language learners’ pe r-
ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (2), (2015)
13
sonality traits and metacognitive listening strategies in EFL contexts. Language learners will have a heightened awareness
of the degree of their listening strategies and of the profiles of their personality traits through the survey process, leading to
finding and improving their strategic strengths and weaknesses appropriate to personality traits. Language teachers will
utilize students’ profiles of individual differences by guiding them with appropriate choices of strategies correlated with
personality traits, wh ich will effectively contribute to language teaching and student counseling (Ehrman & Oxfo rd, 1989).
There will be mo re of a likelihood of preventing negative results stemming fro m inco mpatible teaching and learn ing strat egies (Cohen & Scott, 1998).
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Theoretical Background
Listening has historically been the least researched of the four language skills. This neglect may stem fro m its intangible
(Morley, 1991) and “inside-the-head” (Dunkel, 1991, p. 438) nature. Ho wever, listening plays a critical ro le in both the
acquisition of a second language and the development of co mmunicative co mpetence in that language, as several models of
SLA have shown (Dunkel, 1991, as cited in Krashen, 2008). For examp le, Krashen’s (1981) “In put Hypothesis” (p. 9) posited
that language learning is dependent upon the presence of what he termed “comprehensible input” (p. 9). This is especially
relevant at the earliest stages of language acquisition, and the receptive skills are crucial for providing this input. This historic
neglect led Dunkel (1991) to call for more empirical research into the processes underlying listening comprehension, with the
aim of improving L2 listening instruction. Several researchers have focused that call, and the last 20 years have seen a
growing interest in and understanding of the listening process (Goh, 2008; Vandergrift, 2007).
2.2. Personality and Language Learning
The word personality derives fro m the Latin word persona, which stands for an actor’s mask or ch aracter in the theater.
In ancient Lat in-speaking countries, masks played an important role in typifying actors’ characters rather than disguising their
characteristic identities. Allport (1937) defined personality as “the dynamic organizat ion within the indiv idual of those
psychological systems that determine his unique ad justment to his environment” (p. 48) and insisted that personality provides
informat ion on the way people talk, remember, think, and love. Therefore, personality t raits can pred ict how a person behaves
in certain ways in a specified situation (Cattell, 1965) because traits are both physical and behavioral features that can be
examined across the people (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985).
Carrell et al. (1996) insisted that personality differences become one o f the important factors that affect successful
L2 learning along with affective, motivational, and demographic factors. Personality provides invaluable information on
language learners’ learn ing processes in that personality traits distinguish each indiv idual fro m each other in what to learn and
how to learn. Dörnyei (2006) underscored that personality variables interact with other variables stemming fro m the learning
situation and that students’ engagements in learning tasks in their social con text are personality-based.
Many researchers have examined the relat ionships between personality variab les and language acquisition. Certain
personality variables proved to facilitate learn ing a second or foreign language: empathy (Gu iora, Brannon, & Dull, 1972);
shyness and conformity (Hamayan et al., 1977); introversion and extraversion (Busch, 1982); and sensitivity to rejection, and
tolerance of amb iguity (Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978). Research has produced inconsistent results on the relationships between personality and language learning. So me researchers found that extroversion, one of the most discussed
personality variables, is significantly related to language achievement, indicating that extroverted language learners are mo re
successful language learners (Kiany, 1998; Robinsonet al., 1994), but others found that extroversion did not have a significant
14
relationship with learn ing achievement (Busch, 1982). These inconsistent results have led the study of personality in la nguage learning to remain relat ively unexp lored emp irically co mpared to other variab les of indiv idual d ifferences, and have
led scholars to take other factors affecting successful L2 learning into consideration.
2.3. Metacogntive Strategies and Listening Comprehension
The positive impact of instruction was suggested both on language learning and on listening comprehension. First, lots
of studies indicated that development in strategic knowledge led to imp rovement in language performance (Annevirta et al.,
2007). Annevirta et al (2007) drew their conclusion fro m the high correlation between improvement in meta -knowledge
and better language performance. Enhanced metacognitive knowledge was suggested to be a good predictor of learning,
indicator of better text comprehension (Annevirta et al., 2007; Pressley, 2002), a co mpensation for one's cognitive and intellectual limitations (Veen man et al, 2006, p.6), and an effective tool fo r successful listening (Zhang & Goh, 2006). Second ,
across the literature, it was widely suggested that knowledge and use of metacognitive strategies facilitates L2 listening
comprehension (Annevirta et al., 2007; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Vandergrift, 2003; Zohar & Peled, 2008, cited
in Goh, 2008). Goh (2008) indicated the three benefits as 1) affectively more motivating and less anxious, 2) advantage in
listening performance, and 3) more benefit to weak listeners.
2.4. Empirical Investigations
Personality and language learning strategies are considered an important variable of individual d ifferences in language
acquisition in that more successful language learners tend to employ language learning strategies to accord with their pe rsonalities. Mu mford and Gustafson (1988) also underscored that personality variables may facilitate or hinder la nguage
learning strategies. However, the relationships between the two have not been extensively researched co mpared to other
individual variab les such as attitudes, motivations, anxiety, and demographic variables. Research has shown that specific
personality types or traits are related to preferred language learning strategies.
Liyanage (2004) investigated the relationships between language learning strategies and personality type of 948
(470 male and 478 female) ESL students in government schools in Co lo mbo, Sri Lan ka, using the Language Learning
Strategy Inventory (LLSI) and the EPQ. The study found that the four personality types (choleric, sanguine, melancholic, and
phlegmatic) affect the choice of metacognitive, cognitive, and social affective strategies. The research also found that subjects with high extraversion scores who belong to choleric (unstable extravert) and sanguine (stable extravert ) types obtained
significantly higher scores for all three strategies and that, comparatively, subjects with h igh introverted scores who belong to
melancholic (unstable introvert) and phleg matic (stable introvert) types obtained a higher score for metacognitive strategies
than cognitive and social affective scores.
2.5. Research Questions
Based on the above-mentioned research objectives, this study addressed the following research question as follows:
RQ: Are there any correlat ions between personality traits and metacognitive listening strategies among Iranian EFL lear ners?
15
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Participants
The participants were students (N =80) studying English in one of the institutes in drawn fro m four intact classes. Pa rticipants were identified as ho mogeneous based on their performance on TOFEL pro ficiency test. Those scoring between
one standard deviation above and below the mean were classified as the main participants.
3.2. Instruments
A Background Questionnaire: The demographic survey or background questionnaire will be designed to identify the participants’ sex, age, majors, and background of learn ing English, mediu m of instruction, years of studying English, purpose
and attitude toward learning English.
General English Proficiency Test: The TOEFL p roficiency test was used as the pedestal for evaluating the subjects’ level of
proficiency in English. This test includes 40 multiple-choice vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension items.
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) : This questionnaire consists of 21 randomly o rdered items related
to L2 listening comprehension. The items meas ure the perceived use of the strategies and processes underlying five factors
related to the regulation of L2 listening comprehension. These five factors include Planning and Evaluation (how listeners
prepare themselves for listening and evaluate the results of their listening efforts), Problem Solving (inferencing on what is
not understood and monitoring those inferences), Directed Attention (how listeners concentrate, stay on task, and focus their
listening efforts), Mental Translation (the ab ility to use mental translation parsimoniously), and Person Knowledge (learner
perceptions concerning how they learn best, the difficulty presented by L2 listening, and their self-efficacy in L2 listening).
The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R): The NEO PI-R, developed by Costa and McCrae (1992), is the
standard self-report questionnaire of the FFM . There are t wo versions of the NEO PI-R: Form S and Form R. The former is
designed for self-reports and the latter is used for observer reports. For this study, I used Form S o f the NEO PI-R, wh ich is
also appropriate for use with adults 17 years or older such as indiv iduals of college age. The NEO PI-R is considered the most
widely and extensively validated measure of the five-factor model o f personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It provides a
systematic assessment of emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles by measuring five domain
scales and 30 facet scales The NEO PI-R is rated on a five-point Likert-scale system for each personal trait ranging fro m 1 to
5: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = d isagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The NEO PI -R is
composed of 240 items asking the five do mains and 30 facets. Each participant had an overall score of th e five do mains and
30 facets, respectively. The reliab ility and validity of the NEO PI -R will be reported using Cronbach’s alpha and Guttman
split-half coefficients to test internal consistency.
3.3. Procedure
First, background on the students’ learning English knowledge, along with their characteristics, was tested via the d emographic survey at the beginning of the program. The second step was to determine the level of proficiency of the participants by a General English Proficiency Test (TOEFL) in order to select the ho mogeneous subjects in both contexts. Then,
they were given Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MA LQ) as pretest. Finally, The NEO Personality I nventory-Revised questionnaire was admin istered to see whether there is any correlation between between the students’ use of
metacognitive listening strategies and five domains of personality traits based on The NEO Personality Inventory -Revised
questionnaire.
16
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Correlational Analysis
To investigate the relationships between personality traits and metacognitive listening strategies using the NEO PI -R
for personality traits and the Metacogntive Awareness Listening Questionnaire for metacognitive listening strategies, Pea rson’s r correlat ions were co mputed. Out of the five do mains, ext raversion (r = .256, p < .001), openness (r = .368, p < .001),
and conscientiousness (r = .321, p < .001) were significantly correlated to the overall strategy use. Neuroticism (r = -.081, p
= .202) and agreeableness (r = .083, p = .192) were not significantly correlated to the overall strategy use.
4.2. Neuroticism and metacognitive strategy
Neuroticis m was significantly negatively correlated with metacognitive strategies (p = -.008) as shown in Table 1.
Extraversion showed statistically significant relat ionships with metacognitive (p < .001), strategies according to this table.
Regarding openness, it was significantly correlated to metacognitive (p < .001). As shown in Table 1, agreeableness was
not significantly correlated to metacognitive listening strategies. As far as conscientiousness is concerned, it was significantly correlated to metacognitive (p < .001) strategies.
4.2.1.Neuroticism
The neuroticism domain stands for a tendency to experience negative emotional affec ts (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It
consists of six facets: an xiety, angry hostility, depression, selfconsciousness , and vulnerability. The current study found that
neuroticism was significantly negatively correlated to metacognitive strategies. This result indicates that Iranian EFL students who tended to easily experience an xiety, anger, depression, frustrations, or intense reactions used the strategic a pproaches of coordinating the learning process less frequently than students low in neuroticis m or emot ionally stable. Th is
finding is in accordance with the majority of previous studies that reported a negative influence on educational outcomes
and language learning (Bandura, 1986; Nah l, 2001; Schouwenburg, 1995). On the other hand, emotional stability, the o pposite of high neuroticism, turned out to generally predict university success, maintaining the finding that emotionally st able students perform better than neurotic students (Sanchez-Marin, Rejano-Infante, & Rodriguez-Troyano, 2001). In this
study, the high level of neuroticis m kept Iran ian EFL students fro m making use of the metacognitive functions of centering,
arranging, planning, and evaluating their learning. In other words, students who had irrat ional ideas, difficu lty controlling
their impulses, and trouble with handling stress less frequently used metacognitive strategies than students who were emo tionally stable, calm, even-tempered, and good at coping with stressful situations. As it is clear in Table 1, the correlation
among anxiety and metacognitivie awareness strategies were calculated.
Table 1. Correlation of Personality Trait and Metacognitive Strategies
Anxiety
Metacognitive
strategies
Neuroticism
-.041
Extraversion
.169**
Openness
.317**
Agreeableness
.072
Conscientiousness
.279**
4.3. Five Domains and Overall metacognitive Strategy Use
A model that predicts students’ use of metacognitive strategies fro m the level of the five do mains of the FFM was d eveloped by a simultaneous regression method as shown in Table 2. The linear co mbin ation of the five do mains of the FFM
was significantly related to metacognitive strategies, considering the coefficient of mult iple determination (R2 = .250) was
17
statistically significant, F(5, 244) = 16.288, p < .001. The results indicated that 25% of the variance of metacognitive strategies can be explained by the variance of the five domains of the FFM; in other words, 25% of the use of metacognitive
strategies is predicted or determined by the five domain variables. The standard error of the estimate wa s .537 and the
standard deviation of metacognitive strategies was .614, which indicated the observed errors in p redicting metacognitive
strategies were smaller than the observed differences in the means for metacognitive strategies; as a result, this regre ssion
model proved to be successful. A review of the partial regression coefficients for the five do mains found that only two v ariables- conscientiousness (p < .000) and openness (p = .001)—were significant predictors of metacognitive strategies partialling out the effects of the other variables. As it is indicated in Table 2, the correlation among an xiety and metacognitivie
awareness strategies were calculated.
Table 2. Five Domains Predicting Metacognitive Strategies: Multiple Regressions
rank
Variable
B
SE(B)
Β
t
P
R
rp
rsp
1
Openness
.025
.004
.423
4.696
.000
.441
.383
.359
2
Conscientiousness
.015
.005
.204
3.376
.001
.292
.211
.187
3
Neuroticism
.004
.004
.077
1.126
.261
-.167
.072
.062
4
Extraversion
.004
.004
.060
.905
.366
.259
.058
.050
5
Agreeableness
.001
.003
.021
.366
.715
.058
.023
.020
4.3.2. Extraversion
The extraversion domain references a tendency to prefer stimulation, co mpany of others, and engagement with the
external world (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It consists of six facets: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotions. The current study found that extraversion was positively correlated to metacognitive
strategies. This indicates that Iranian EFL students high in ext raversion more frequently used these strategies than the students low in ext raversion. In co mparison, the students who were shy reserved, independent, and even -paced did not employ
these strategies as often. This indicates that the students high in extraversion are good at lowering their an xiety level, encouraging themselves, and taking their emotional temperature. They are willing to ask questions, cooperate with others, and
empathize with others in their learning processes.
There are p revious studies on the preferences for learning strategies depending on language learners’ personalities.
These consistent findings have been found from the studies of ESL learners (Liyanage, 2004; Sharp, 2008), EFL learners
(Wakamoto, 2000), and FL learners (Ehrman & Oxfo rd, 1989, 1990). The majority of findings fro m previous studies on the
relationships between ext raversion and language learning strategies have reported that ext roverted students preferred to use
social strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Sharp, 2008), functional practice and social-affect ive strategies (Liyanage,
2004), and affect ive and visualization strategies (Eh rman & Oxford, 1989). In co mparison, introverted students preferred to
use metacognitive strategies while avoiding using social strategies (Sharp, 2008) and strateg ies for searching for and communicating meaning (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989).
4.3.3. Openness
The openness domain stands for a willingness to experience inner and outer worlds (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It co nsists of six facets: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. This current study found that openness was significantly positively correlated to metacognitive, strategies. This result implies that Iranian students, who were curious
about their own worlds and welco ming of unconventional values and novel ideas, showed more frequent use of these strategies than the students who were mo re conventional and conservative in behavior, maintaining a narrow outlook and scope
of interests. In other words, the students high in openness utilized strategic approaches in storing and retrieving information
in the target English language; understanding and producing English by many different means; filling the knowledge gap;
controlling their own cognition; regulating their emotions, motivations, and attitudes; and interacting with others.
18
The majority of findings from prev ious studies on openness have reported that students’ level of openness was
positively correlated to academic achievement (Schuerger & Kuna, 1987). The students high in openness must be taking
advantage of their wider range of interests and inspiration for new information and learning resources. Furthermore, their
willingness to welco me unconventional ideas and values must be increasing the awareness of different perspectives in interpretations, points of view, and content quality, leading to retrieving a broad range of information more effectively.
As Oxford (1990) pointed out, learning another language deals with new in formation such as “unfamiliar vocab ulary, confusing rules, different writ ing systems, seeming ly inexplicable social customs, and nontraditional instructional a pproaches” (p. 136). Therefore, students’ high openness, such as unconventional and liberal behaviors and preference for
variety, becomes a foundation for a critical approach in accepting, utilizing, and evaluating new information on the target
English language.
4.3.4. Agreeableness
The agreeableness domain stands for a tendency to build harmony in social situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It
consists of six facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, co mpliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. The current study
found that agreeableness was not significantly correlated to metacognitive listening strategies and was not a significant
predictor for using these strategies via the multiple regression analysis. This result implies that students’ degree of agree ableness did not indicate any preferred use of these strategies whether they were sympathetic to others and eager to help
them (high on agreeableness) or they are skeptical of others’ intentions and more co mpetitive than cooperative (low on
agreeableness). This finding is in accordance with the majority o f prev ious studies that revealed that agreeableness was not
a significant predictor of end-of-training proficiency (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995) and learning success (Chamorro-Premu zic
& Furnham, 2003). On ly a couple of previous studies found a positive relat ionship between agreeableness and self-reported
academic performance (Heaven et al., 2002) and in-class performance and overall GPA (Rothstein et al., 1994).
4.3.5. Conscientiousness
The conscientiousness domain stands for a tendency to show self-d iscipline and an aim for accomp lish ment (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). It consists of six facets: co mpetence, order, dutifu lness, achievement striving, self-d iscipline, and deliberation. The current study found that conscientiousness was strongly correlated to metacognitive strategies. This result imp lies
that the students who were more purposeful, strong-willed, and determined to achieve their goals more frequently used
these strategies than the students who were more lackadaisical in accomp lishing their goals. This finding is in accordance
with the majority of previous studies that revealed conscientiousness as the most important personality factor related to
academic performance and success (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995).
However, a few
studies on the relationships between conscientiousness and language learning revealed find ings different fro m this study.
Ehrman and Oxfo rd’s (1990) study of FL learners found that judgers in the MBTI, who were considered high on the conscientiousness domain in the FFM, preferred using two indirect strategies, metacognitive and social strategies, whereas
perceivers in the MBTI, who were considered low on the conscientiousness domain, preferred to use two direct strategies,
cognitive and compensation strategies. Moreover, the conscientiousness domain, indirectly measured by the MBTI, was
found not to play a positive role in language acquisition. Rather, its role was found inconsistent and insignificant. The level
of judging in the MBTI, which corresponds to conscientious in the FFM, was found not to have any correlation with end of
training proficiency in Eh rman and Oxfo rd’s (1995) study of FL learners, and even judging was found to be negatively
correlated with grammar performance in Carrell et al.’s (1996) study of EFL adult learners.
5. CONCLUSION
This section presents the discussions and interpretations of the find ings according to the research topics. The NEO
PI-R of the FFM provides a systematic assessment of “emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational
styles” (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 14) through five domain scales (neuroticism, ext raversion, openn ess, agreeableness, and
19
conscientiousness) at the broadest levels. It also provides a more in -depth analysis of personality traits by measuring more
specific facet scales within each of five domain scales. Each do main scale has six intercorrelated facets t hat produce the
domain score. The analysis of the data sources fro m the NEO PI-R, the Metacogntive Awareness Listening provides the
framework for the discussion on the correlations of each of the five domains and the 30 facets of the FFM and the met acognitive groups. Each domain scale has six intercorrelated facets that produce the domain score. The analysis of the data
sources provides the framework for the discussion on the correlations of each of the five domains and the 30 facets of the
FFM and the six strategy groups.
Neuroticism
The neuroticism domain stands for a tendency to experience negative emotional affects (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It
consists of six facets: an xiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. The current
study found that neuroticism was significantly negatively correlated only to metacognitive strategies out of the six strategy
groups. This result indicates that learners who tended to easily experience an xiety, anger, depression, frustratio ns, or intense
reactions used the strategic approaches of coordinating the learning process less frequently than students low in neuroticis m
or emotionally stable. This finding is in accordance with the majority of p revious studies that reported a negative influence
on educational outcomes and language learning (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Bandura, 1986; Costa & McCrae, 1992;
De Barbenza & Montoya, 1974; Entwistle, 1988; Lathey, 1991; Miculincer, 1997; Nahl, 2001; Schouwenburg, 1995).
Extraversion
The extraversion domain references a tendency to prefer stimulation, co mpany of others, and engagement with the
external world (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It consists of six facets: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excit ement-seeking, and positive emotions. The current study found that extraversion was positively correlated to metacognitive
strategies Extraversion has been one of the most discussed personality factors in language learning and the findings of pr evious studies on extraversion appear to be varied. Some studies found that extraversion had a significant relationship with
learning achievement (Chastain, 1975; Kiany, 1998; Robinson et al., 1994; Rossier, 1976; Skehan, 1989). Other studies
found that introversion had a positive influence on language achievement (Carrell et al., 1996; Smart et al., 1976). Other
studies did not find any significant relationships between levels of extraversion and learning ach ievement (Busch, 1982;
Daele et al., 2006; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Strong, 1983; Suter, 1976; Swain & Burnaby, 1976).
Openness
The openness domain stands for a willingness to experience inner and outer worlds (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It co nsists of six facets: fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. This current study found that openness was significantly positively correlated to metacognitive strategy. The majority of findings fro m prev ious studies on openness have
reported that students’ level of openness was positively correlated to academic achievement (Ackerman & Heggest ad, 1997;
Blickle, 1996; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996; Schuerger & Kuna, 1987).
Agreeableness
The agreeableness domain stands for a tendency to build harmony in social situations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It
consists of six facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, co mpliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. The current study
found that agreeableness was not significantly correlated to metacognitive strategy. Previous studies of FL learners (Eh rman & Oxford, 1989, 1990) found that the thinking-feeling scale in the M BTI, which is closely correlated to the agreeableness domain in the FFM, was significantly related to the preference for specific language learning strategies. However,
the current study did not find any significant relationship among the five domains and the six strategy groups on the domain
level.
20
Conscientiousness
The conscientiousness domain stands for a tendency to show self-d iscipline and an aim for accomp lish ment (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). It consists of six facets: co mpetence, order, dutifu lness, achievement striving, self-d iscipline, and deliberation. The current study found that conscientiousness was strongly correlated to metacognitive strategies This finding is in
accordance with the majority of prev ious studies that revealed conscient iousness as the most important personality factor
related to academic performance and success (Blickle, 1996; Busato et al., 2000; Chamorro -Premu zic & Furnham, 2003;
De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996; De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Heaven et al., 2002; Hirschberg & Itkin, 1978; Lounsbury,
Sundstro, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). Also, several studies found that the advantages of a high
level of conscientiousness are not limited to academic performance
REFERENCES
[1] Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper Centre for Research in Language Education (CRILE),
University of Lancaster, England.
[2] Annevirta, T., Laakkonen, E., Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M (.2007). Developmental dynamics of metacognitive knowledge and text
comprehension skill in the first primary school years. Metacognition Learning, 2, 21-39.
[3] Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[4] Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency of Japanese students. Language Learning, 25, 153-161.
[6] Carrell, P. L., Prince, M . S., & Astika, G. G. (1996). Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning,
46, 75-99.
[7] Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M . F. (2000). Perspectives on personality (4th ed.) Boston, M A: Allyn and Bacon.
[8] Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, M D: Penguin.
[9] Cohen, A. D., & Scott, K. (1996). A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning strategies. In R. O xford (Ed.), Language
learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 89-106). M anoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
[10] Crowne, D. P., & M arlowe, D. (1992). The approval motive. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
[11] Daele, S., Housen, A., Pierrard, M ., & Debruyn, L. (2006). The effect of extraversion on oral L2 proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6,
213-236.
[12] Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68.
[13] Ehrman, M . E, & O xford, R. L. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choices, and psychological type on adult langua ge learning
strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
[14] Ehrman, M . E., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The visible and invisible classroom.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[15] Ehrman, M . E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern
Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
[16] Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525-551). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
[17] Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M . W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York, N Y: Plenum Press.
[18] Goh, C. (2008). M etacognitive instruction for second language listening development: theory, practice and research implications.
RELC Journal, 39(2), 188-211.
[19] Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34, 165 182.
21
[20] Guiora, A. Z., Brannon, R. C. L., & Dull, C. Y. (1972). Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning, 22, 111-130.
[21] Hamayan, E., Genesee, F., & Tucker, G. R. (1977). Affective factors and language exposure in second language learning. Language
Learning, 27, 225-241.
[22] Harris, V., & Grenfell, M . (2004). Language learning strategies: A case for cross-curricular collaboration. Language Awareness, 13,
116-130.
[23] Ingram, D. E. (1979). Aspects of personality development for bilingualism. Paper presented at the Regional English Language Centre Seminar, Singapore. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
[24] Kiany, G. R. (1998). English proficiency and academic achievement in relation to extraversion: A preliminary study. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 113-131.
[25] Krashen, S. (2008). Language education: Past, present, and future. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39(2), 178-187.
[26] Lalonde, R. N., & Gardner, R. C. (1984). Investigating a causal model of second language acquisition: Where does personality fit?
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 16, 224-237.
[27] Liyanage, I. J. B. (2004). An exploration of language learning strategies and learner variables of Sri Lankan learners of English as
a second language with special reference to their personality types (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Griffith University, Queensland,
Australia.
[28] M acIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3-26.
[29] M umford, M . D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application and innovation. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 27-43. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.103.1.27.
[30] M yers, I. B., & M yers, P. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
[31] Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M ., & Stern, H. H. (1975). The good language learner. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[32] Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, M A: Heinle & Heinle.
[33] Oxford, R. L. (1999). Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 518-522). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
[34] Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory
study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1-47.
[35]
Oxford.
R.
L.
(2003).
Language
learning
styles
and
strategies:
An
overview.
Retrieved
from
http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf.
[36] Phares, E. J., & Chaplin, W. F. (1997). Introduction to personality (4th ed.). Reading, M A: Addison-Wesley.
[37] Reiss, M . (1981). Helping the unsuccessful language learner. The Modern Language Journal, 65, 121-128.
[38] Reiss, M . (1985). The good language learner: Another look. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 511-523.
[39] Richards, J. C. (2002). Second thoughts on teaching listening, RELC, 36(1), 80-92.
[40] Safarali, S. K., & Hamidi, H. (2012). The impact of videos presenting speakers’ gestures and facial clues on Iranian EFL learners’
listening comprehension. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1 (6), 106-114.
[41] Saklofske, D. H., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (Eds.). (1998). Individual differences in children and adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
[42] Sharp, A. (2005). Individual differences in language learning: The effects of Jungian personality type. International Journal of
Learning, 11, 633-639.
[43] Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian Social Science, 4, 17-25.
[44] Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London, England: Edward Arnold.
[45] Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.
22
[46] Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching,
40, 191–210.
[47] Veenman, M ., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). M etacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
[48] Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 361-374.
[49] Wakamoto, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extraversion and introversion. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(1), 71-81.
[50] Zhang, D, & Goh, C. C. M . (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students' awareness of listening
and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 199-219.
Appendix
NEO PI-R Questions
1. I am not a worrier.
2. I really like most people I meet.
3. I have a very active imagination.
4. I tend to be cynical and skeptical of othersʹ
intentions.
5. Iʹm known fo r my prudence and common
sense.
6. I often get angry at the way people treat me.
7. I shy away from crowds of people.
8. Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren’t very important to me.
9. Iʹm not crafty or sly.
10. I would rather keep my options open than
plan everything in advance.
11. I rarely feel lonely or blue.
12. I am dominant, forceful, and assertive.
Without strong emotions, life would be uninteresting to me.
13. Some people think I’m selfish and egotistical.
14. I t ry to perfo rm all the tasks assigned to me
conscientiously.
15. In dealing with other people, I always dread
making a social blunder.
16. I have a leisurely style in work and play.
17. Iʹm pretty set in my ways.
18. I would rather cooperate with others than
compete with them.
19. I am easy‐going and lackadaisical.
20. I rarely overindulge in anything.
21. I often crave excitement.
22. I often enjoy p laying with theories or abstract
ideas.
23.I don’t mind bragging about my talents and
accomplishments.
24. Iʹm pretty good about pacing myself so as to
get things done on time.
25. I often feel helpless and want someone else
to solve my problems.
26. I have never literally jumped for joy.
27. I believe letting students hear controversial
speakers can only confuse and mislead them.
28. Political leaders need to be more aware of the
human side of their policies.
29. Over the years I’ve done some p retty stupid
things.
30. I am easily frightened.
31. I don’t get much pleasure fro m chatting with
people.
32. I try to keep all my thoughts directed along
realistic lines and avoid flights of fancy.
23
24
33. I believe that most people are basically
well‐intentioned.
34. I don’t take civic duties like voting very s eriously.
35. Iʹm an even‐tempered person.
36. I like to have a lot of people around me.
37. I am sometimes comp letely absorbed in music I am listening to.
38. If necessary, I am willing to manipu late people to get what I want.
39. I keep my belongings neat and clean.
Sometimes I feel completely worthless.
40. I somet imes fail to assert myself as much as I
should.
41. I rarely experience strong emotions.
42. I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.
43. So met imes I’m not as dependable or reliable
as I should be.
44. I seldom feel self‐conscious when I’m around
people.
45. When I do things, I do them vigorously.
46. I th ink it ’s interesting to learn and develop
new hobbies.
47. I can be sarcastic and cutting when I need to
be.
48. I have a clear set of goals and work toward
them in an orderly fashion.
49. I have trouble resisting my cravings.
50. I wouldn’t enjoy vacationing in Las Vegas.
51. I find philosophical arguments boring.
52. Iʹd rather not talk about me and my achieve-
ments.
53. I waste a lot of time before settling down to
work.
54. I feel I am capable of coping with most of my
problems.
55. I have sometimes experienced intense joy or
ecstasy.
56. I believe that laws and social policies should
change to reflect the needs of a changing world.
57. Iʹm hard‐headed and tough‐minded in my
attitudes.
25

The Relationship between Personality Traits - ELT Voices

Transcription

Similar documents

Activities Flyer

Building Faculty Capacity for 21st Century Teaching Chestnut Hill

Learning English through Short Stories

Speaking and Listening Performance Task

Print a Brochure (Back)

The Guide to Handling Conflict and Mediation: A Manager`s Webinar

Personality Disorders

making-time-to-talk - Ann Bernadt Nursery

Therapeutic Communications Presence Regional EMS System January 2014 Continuing Education

syllabus - Paul Trapnell