Thesis Summary by Amir Hamid Forough Ameri

1. In the Name of God
The Most Compassionate
The Most Merciful

2. Title:
The Relationship Between
Extraversion/Introversion
and Iranian EFL Learners’
Language Learning Strategy Preferences

3. Supervisor:
Dr. Langroudi
Advisor:
Dr. Shariati
Presented by:
Amir Hamid Forough Ameri
ahfameri@gmail.com

4. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. 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.

5. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
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.

6. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
In 1994, Ellis classified individual learner differences
affecting the strategy choice in terms of:
(1) attitudes
(2) affective states
(3) general factors (p. 540).

7. Factors
Affecting
Strategy Choice
General Factors
Gender
Personality
Type
Age
Motivation
Personal
Background
Affective States
Attitudes

8. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
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:

9. Eysenck's
Personality
Model
extraversion/
introversion
neurotic/stable
psychotic/
normal

10. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
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).

11. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
● 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.

12. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW
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).

13. 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.

14. extraversion/
introversion
Gender
Frequency
and Type
of LLS

15. 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.

16. Oxford’s
Framework of
LLS
Direct
Strategies
Indirect
Strategies

17. Direct
Strategies
Memory Cognitive Compensation

18. Indirect
Strategies
Metacognitive Affective Social

19. 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).

20. Eysenck's
Personality
Model
extraversion/
introversion
neurotic/stable
psychotic/
normal

21. 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?

22. RELATIONSHIP
Extraversion
Introversion
Frequency
and Type of
LLS

23. 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?

24. Frequency
of LLS
Males Females

25. Extraversion
Introversion
Males Females

26. 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

27. 2.THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Researcher Participants Purpose Findings
Tamada
(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.

28. 2.THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Researcher Participants Purpose Findings
Wakamato
(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.

29. 2.THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Researcher Participants Purpose Findings
Riazi 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.

30. 2.THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
■ Gap in Literature
Few 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.

31. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. 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.

32. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. 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.

33. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
► 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.

34. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
● 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.

35. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
● 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.

36. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
► 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.

37. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.2. INSTRUMENTS
● 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.

38. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.3. 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.

39. 3. METHODOLOGY
3.4. 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.

40. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
► Gender: The analysis of the collected data shows that 21
out of 100 students were male and 79 were female .
FrequencyPercentFrequencyGender
21.021.021Male
100.079.079Female
100.0100
Total

41. ► Learners’ Language Learning Strategies
The Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics of the Students'
LLS Use
RangeStd. DeviationMeanPercentFrequency
Language
Learning
Strategies
0-20024.39103.9
1.01
Never or
almost
never true
of me
17.017
Usually
not true of
me
54.054
Somewhat
true of me
27.027
Usually
true of me
1.01
Always or
almost
always
true of me
100.0100Total

42. Social
Strategies
Affective
Strategies
Metacognitive
Strategies
Compensation
Strategies
Cognitive
Strategies
Memory
Strategies
Language
Learning
Strategies
atistics
100100100100100100100
N
12.6110.4023.650012.3630.0414.79103.85Mean
11.5010.0024.0012.5030.0015.00103.00Median
10.008.0021.0013.0024.0015.00100.00
Mode
5.0854.496.7304.1578.3164.7524.39
Std.
Deviation
2.00.002.002.008.00.0036.00
Minimum
24.0022.0035.0024.0055.0029.00160.00
Maximum
0-240-240-360-240-560-360-200Range
Descriptive Statistics of the Students' LLS Preferences

43. ► 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

44. ►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 .
RangeStd. DeviationMeanPercentFrequency
0-214.8413.1
30.030
Introversion
70.070
Extraversion
100.0100Total

45. 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
Relationship
Significant
relationship
Spearman's rhoNPearson
Correlation
Coefficient
SigCorrelationSigCorrelation
Positiveyes0.0330.2131000.0270.221
Language
Learning
Strategies

46. ● 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.

47. 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.

48. 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 rhoNPearson
Correlation
Coefficient SigCorrelationSigCorrelation
-No0.7390.0341000.839-0.021
Memory
Strategies
PositiveYes0.0160.2401000.0160.241
Cognitive
Strategies
-No0.4520.0761000.5960.054
Compensation
Strategies

49. The personality Trait of Extraversion/Introversion
Type of
Relationship
Significant
relationship
Spearman's rhoNPearson
Correlation
Coefficient SigCorrelationSigCorrelation
PositiveYes0.0030.2921000.0030.292
Metacognitive
Strategies
-No0.4220.0811000.3710.090
Affective
Strategies
PositiveYes0.0440.2011000.0850.173
Social
Strategies
4.3. Analysis of the Relationship Between
Extraversion/Introversion and Learners’
Type of Language Learning Strategies Use

50. 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.

51. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
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.

52. p-
value
(Sig)
dfStatistics
T
Std.
Deviation
MeanNLanguage
Learning
Strategies
0.341980.957
23.50420108.381021male
Gender
24.62438102.645679
female
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.

53. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
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.

54. The Statistics of T-test to Compare the Means of
Extraversion/Introversion in two Groups of Males and
Females.
p-
value
(Sig)
dfStatistics
T
Std.
Deviation
MeanNThe personality Trait of
Extraversion/
Introversion
0.00498-2.96
5.2810.3821
male
Gender
4.4813.7779
female

55. 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.

56. 5.SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
OF THE STUDY
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.

57. 5.SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
OF THE STUDY
► 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.

58. Thank You.
Be Good.