thesis summary by amir hamid forough ameri

In the Name of GodThe Most Compassionate

The Most Merciful

Title:The Relationship Between Extraversion/Introversion and Iranian EFL Learners ’

Language Learning Strategy Preferences

Supervisor: Dr. Langroudi

Advisor: Dr. Shariati

Presented by: Amir Hamid Forough Ameri

[email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION1.1. OVERVIEW

In 2000, Brown noticed that some language learners seemed to be totally successful regardless of specific methods or techniques of teaching. Therefore, the importance of individual-learner variables such as motivation, attitude, aptitude, learning styles, language learning strategies (LLS), sex, age, and personality type factors such as extraversion/introversion in language learning got more significance.


However, language learning strategies have been investigated much more than other variables in the literature. The reason behind this fact might be ''the mediating role of learning strategies'' in language learning (Ellis, 1994, p. 529). Language learning strategies have often been studied in relation to several other variables that affect them such as: * gender * achievement * motivation * culture * learning styles * personality type factors, etc.


In 1994, Ellis classified individual learner differences affecting the strategy choice in terms of:

(1) attitudes

(2) affective states

(3) general factors (p. 540).

Factors Affecting Strategy Choice

General Factors

Gender

Personality Type

Age

Motivation

Personal Background

Affective States

Attitudes


In addition, in Eysenck's (as cited in Ellis, 1994) theory there are three main dimensions or traits which together build an individual's affective aspect or personality type:

Eysenck's Personality Model

extraversion/

introversion

neurotic/stable

psychotic/normal


Selected Definitions of Terms Extraversion/Introversion: ● Extraversion and introversion, the terms used by Jung (1971), explain different attitudes people use to direct their energy (Martin, 1997). ● According to Burruss and Kaenzig (1999) the introvert’s main focus is ''within his/her head, in the internal world of ideas and concepts,''while, the extravert’s primary focus is ''on the external world of people and activities'' (p. 1).


● More recently, Kise (2007) pointed out that extraverts prefer: • talking things out • variety and action • forming thoughts through discussion • focusing on the outer world • activity before reflection

while introverts prefer: • thinking about things • concentration • focusing on the inner world • reflection before any activity.


language learning strategies (LLS): ● Rubin (1975) provided a very broad definition of learning strategies as ''the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge'' (p. 43).

● In 1987, Wenden and Rubin defined learning strategies as "... any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information" (p. 19). ● In 1990, Oxford proposed her detailed definition of language learning strategies as ''specific action taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations'' (p. 8).

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

► According to Chamot and Kupper (as cited in Purdie & Oliver, 1999), it appears that all language learners use language learning strategies of some type, but the frequency and type of their use varies among different learners.

► Purdie and Oliver (1999) have asserted that there has been little research in the literature devoted to the potential relationship between affective factors and strategy selection.

extraversion/

introversion

GenderFrequency and Type of LLS

1.5. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

● Oxford’s Strategy Classification System: In Oxford's (1990) framework of LLS, strategies are divided into two main classes, direct and indirect.

► Direct Strategies include ''strategies that directly involve the target language and require mental processing of the language'' (Oxford, 1990, p. 37).

► Indirect Strategies ''provide indirect support for language learning through focusing, planning, evaluating, seeking opportunities, etc.'' (Oxford, 1990, p.151). In this taxonomy sixty-two strategies are defined and classified under six major categories.

Oxford’s Framework of LLS

Direct Strategies

Indirect Strategies

Direct Strategies

Memory Cognitive Compensation

Indirect StrategiesMetacogniti

ve Affective Social

1.5. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

● Eysenck's (1967) PEN model To identify the learners' degree of extraversion/ introversion, Eysenck's (1967) PEN model has been used. In the PEN model, personality is comprised of three major dimensions: • Extraversion (E) • Neuroticism (N) • Psychoticism (P).

Eysenck's Personality

Model

extraversion/introversion

neurotic/stablepsychotic/normal

1.6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study aims at seeking answers to the following major and minor research questions: Major Research Questions: 1. Are there any significant relationships between

extraversion/introversion and the frequency of language learning strategies Iranian EFL learners use?

2. Are there any significant relationships between extraversion/introversion and the type of language learning strategies Iranian EFL learners use?

RELATIONSHIP

Extraversion

Introversion

Frequency

and

Type of LLS

1.6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Minor Research Questions: 3. Are there any significant differences between

males and females regarding the frequency of language learning strategies they use?

4. Are there any significant differences between males

and females regarding extraversion/introversion?

Frequency of LLS

MalesFemales

Extraversion

Introversion

MalesFemales

Researcher Participants Purpose Findings

Busch (1982) Japanese students To find a relationship

between extraversion/

introversion and L2 proficiency

A negative relationship

between extraversion/

introversion and L2 proficiency

was found

2.THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Researcher Participants Purpose FindingsTamada (1996)

24 Japanese third year college

students

To investigate the relationship

between Japanese learners'

personality factors and their choices of LLS

Japanese learners' sex,

integrative and instrumental motivation

affected choice of strategies

significantly, but their major,

personality, and proficiency did

not.


Researcher Participants Purpose FindingsWakamato

(2000) Japanese ESL

students to discover if and how the LLS differ between

extraverts and introverts.

extraverts showed a strong tendency to use the functional

practice strategies and

social affective strategies, while

introverts showed no such tendency to use any strategies

types.


Researcher Participants Purpose FindingsRiazi and Rahimi (2005)

220 female and male English major

university students

To investigate Iranian EFL learners' perceived

use of LLS

Iranian EFL learners were medium

strategy users and used metacognitive

strategies with a high frequency; cognitive,

compensation, and affective strategies

with a medium frequency; memory and social strategies

with a low frequency.


■ Gap in LiteratureFew studies have directly investigated the relationship between extraversion/introversion and the frequency and type of LLS used by EFL learners. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate such a relationship in an Iranian EFL context.

3. METHODOLOGY3.1. PARTICIPANTS

■ One hundred Iranian EFL students studying at the departments of foreign languages of Kerman universities, namely Bahonar University and Azad University took part in this study. ■ These students, including both males and females, were randomly selected from among junior and senior students majoring in English Translation and English Literature.

3. METHODOLOGY3.2. INSTRUMENTS

In this study, two questionnaires were utilized: ► Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure extraversion/introversion,

► The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to determine the type and frequency of language learning strategies.


► Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

This questionnaire consisting of 90 items has been constructed by Eysenck (1975) and measures three personality factors :

•extraversion, •neuroticism , •psychoticism .

All items of the questionnaire are of dichotomous Yes/No type .


● Eysenck and Eysenck (2005) have investigated the reliability of the questionnaire using test-retest reliability which was found to be 0.89.

● Considering the consistency reliability (or alpha coefficient), the reliability is satisfactory, being 0.84 for females and 0.85 for males (Eysenck & Eysenck, 2005).

● Nithya and Sheela (2005) reported the test-retest reliability of this questionnaire as ranging from 0.89 to 0.94.


● Pilot Study: This questionnaire was piloted with 30 EFL students who were randomly selected at Bahonar and Azad Universities of Kerman, and its reliability was found to be 0.81 using Cronbach’s alpha. ● Furthermore, its reliability was calculated to be 0.85 in the main study.


► The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)The 50-item Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (version 7.0, ESL/EFL student version) devised by Oxford (1990) consists of six major categories each containing a number of items. The categories include: 1) Memory (nine items: 1-9)2) Cognitive (14 items: 10-23)3) Compensation (six items: 24-29)4) Metacognitive (nine items: 30-38) 5) Affective (six items: 39-44)6) Social (six items: 45-50).

● The choices ranged from 1 (''never or almost never true of me'') to 5 (''always or almost always true of me'') on a five-point Likert scale.


● Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) reported its internal reliability using Cronbach's alpha as ranging from 0.89 to 0.98. They stated that ''with ESL/EFL SILL, Cronbach alphas have been 0.94'' (p. 6).

● Reliability of this questionnaire was also determined by the present researcher to be 0.80 in the pilot study before the main research, and 0.89 in the main study using Cronbach's alpha formula.

3. METHODOLOGY3.3. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

● The present study was carried out during the class time.

● The researcher spoke to the students about the purpose of this study and, to increase the truthfulness of the students' answers, asked them to be sincere with regard to their responses. ● EPQ and SILL were distributed among the participants simultaneously, and they were given the necessary instructions as how to answer each questionnaire.

3. METHODOLOGY3.4. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

■ Descriptive and inferential statistics were applied using SPSS software.

■ With regard to the first two research questions, Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis and Spearman formula were utilized to seek any meaningful relations between extraversion/introversion and the frequency and type of LLS learners used.

■ Concerning the last two research questions, independent Samples t-test was used to find any significant differences between males and females regarding the frequency of LLS and extraversion/introversion.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS4.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

► Gender: The analysis of the collected data shows that 21 out of 100 students were male and 79 were female .

Frequency Percent Frequency Gender

21.0 21.0 21 Male

100.0 79.0 79 Female

100.0 100Total

► Learners’ Language Learning Strategies

The Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics of the Students' LLS Use

Range Std. Deviation Mean Percent FrequencyLanguage Learning Strategies

0-200 24.39 103.9

1.0 1

Never or almost

never true of me

17.0 17Usually

not true of me

54.0 54 Somewhat true of me

27.0 27 Usually true of me

1.0 1

Always or almost always

true of me100.0 100 Total

Social Strategies

Affective Strategies

Metacognitive Strategies

Compensation Strategies

Cognitive Strategies

Memory Strategies

Language Learning Strategies

Statistics

100 100 100 100 100 100 100N

12.61 10.40 23.6500 12.36 30.04 14.79 103.85 Mean

11.50 10.00 24.00 12.50 30.00 15.00 103.00 Median

10.00 8.00 21.00 13.00 24.00 15.00 100.00 Mode

5.085 4.49 6.730 4.157 8.316 4.75 24.39Std.

Deviation

2.00 .00 2.00 2.00 8.00 .00 36.00Minimum

24.00 22.00 35.00 24.00 55.00 29.00 160.00Maximum

0-24 0-24 0-36 0-24 0-56 0-36 0-200 Range

Descriptive Statistics of the Students' LLS Preferences

► LEARNERS’ LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

With regard to the mean scores, the six strategy categories can be ordered from the most preferred to the least:

1 .Cognitive, Mean→30.04 2 .Metacognitive, Mean→23.65 3 .Memory, Mean→14.79 4 .Social, Mean→12.61 5 .Compensation, Mean→12.36 6 .Affective, Mean→10.40

►EXTRAVERSION/INTROVERSION

To describe the variable of extraversion/introversion, the obtained scores have been divided into two classes of extraversion and introversion. On the whole, out of 100 subjects, 30 students were introverts, and 70 students were extraverts. ► In other words, most of the students were extraverted .

Range Std. Deviation Mean Percent Frequency

0-21 4.84 13.1

30.0 30Introversion

70.0 70Extraversion

100.0 100 Total

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.2. Analysis of the Relationship Between Extraversion/Introversion and Learners’ Frequency of language learning strategies

The personality Trait of Extraversion/Introversion Type of

RelationshipSignificant relationship

Spearman's rho N PearsonCorrelation Coefficient

Sig Correlation Sig Correlation

Positive yes 0.033 0.213 100 0.027 0.221

Language Learning Strategies

● Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients between extraversion/introversion and language learning strategies are 0.221 and 0.213 with the P-values of 0.027 and 0.033 respectively which are both below the significance level of α: 0.05.

● Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between extraversion/introversion and the students' frequency of LLS use.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

1. In the process of language learning, extraverted students use LLS more frequently than the introverted ones.

2. The personality trait of extraversion/introversion, among other factors, has had some kind of effect on the students’ frequency of LLS use.

3. Therefore, the implication is for teachers to determine whether their students are more or less extraverted, to group their students accordingly, and to train more introverted learners to use LLS more frequently.

4.3. Analysis of the Relationship Between Extraversion/Introversion and Learners’ Type of Language Learning Strategies Use

The personality Trait of Extraversion/Introversion

Type of Relationship

Significant relationship

Spearman's rho N PearsonCorrelation CoefficientSig Correlation Sig Correlation

- No 0.739 0.034 100 0.839 -0.021Memory

Strategies

Positive Yes 0.016 0.240 100 0.016 0.241

Cognitive Strategies

- No 0.452 0.076 100 0.596 0.054

Compensation Strategies

The personality Trait of Extraversion/Introversion

Type of Relationship

Significant relationship

Spearman's rho N PearsonCorrelation CoefficientSig Correlation Sig Correlation

Positive Yes 0.003 0.292 100 0.003 0.292

Metacognitive Strategies

- No 0.422 0.081 100 0.371 0.090

Affective Strategies

Positive Yes 0.044 0.201 100 0.085 0.173

Social Strategies

4.3. Analysis of the Relationship Between Extraversion/Introversion and Learners’ Type of Language Learning Strategies Use

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

1. There was a significant relationship between extraversion/ introversion and three types of LLS: the more extraverted the students, the higher their scores of Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Social strategies.

2. Extraverted students use Memory, Affective, and Compensation strategies less than the other types.

3. Therefore, the implication is for teachers • to become more aware of different personality traits such as extraversion/introversion and different types of LLS • to provide introverted students with different types of strategies. • to train extraverted students to utilize Memory, Affective, and Compensation strategies more frequently.


4.4 .Analysis of the Difference Between Males and Females Regarding the Frequency of Language Learning Strategies

● An independent samples t-test was applied to compare the means of LLS use in two groups of males and females .

●Obtained P-value: 0.341 > 0.05

● So, it can be concluded that there is no significant

difference between two groups of males and females regarding their LLS use .

p-value (Sig)

df StatisticsT

Std. Deviation

Mean N Language Learning Strategies

0.341 98 0.95723.50420 108.3810 21 male

Gender24.62438 102.6456 79female

The Statistics of T-test to Compare the Means of LLS Use in two Groups of Males and Females.

This finding is consistent with the results reported by Vandergrift (2004),, while it is in contrast with the study carried out by Wharton (2004 ) who found that males used more strategies than females.


4.5. Analysis of the Difference Between Males and Females Regarding Extraversion/Introversion ● An independent samples T-test was applied to compare the means of extraversion/introversion in two groups of males and females. ● Obtained P-value: 0.004 < 0.05 ● So, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between males and females regarding their extraversion/introversion. ● Females are more extraverted than males.

The Statistics of T-test to Compare the Means of Extraversion/Introversion in two Groups of Males and Females.

p-value (Sig)

df StatisticsT

Std. Deviation

Mean N The personality Trait of Extraversion/

Introversion

0.004 98 -2.96

5.28 10.38 21

male

Gender

4.48 13.77 79

female

5.SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The findings of this study revealed that : ► first, more extraverted students use LLS more frequently,

► second, more extraverted students, use Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Social strategies more than the other types,

► third, there is no significant difference between males and females regarding the frequency of their LLS use, and ► finally, females are more extraverted than males.

► So, females use LLS more frequently. However, they use Cognitive, Metacognitive, and Social strategies more frequently than the other types.


These conclusions have some implications: ► Teachers can help their students by designing instruction that

meets the needs of individuals with different personality types and by teaching students how to improve their learning strategies accordingly .

► Therefore, they should select the proper instruments to identify their students’ different personality types and their choices of LLS.

► English language teachers should familiarize their students with such concepts as individual differences and personality traits including extraversion/introversion as well as language learning strategies.


► Finally, curriculum developers and material designers should provide curriculums and materials that best suit different learners with different degrees of extraversion, different gender, and with different preferences for LLS.

Thank You. Be Good.

thesis summary by amir hamid forough ameri

Education