Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Role of Personality Traits in the Choice and Use of the Compensation Category of English Language Learning Strategies


Affiliations
1 Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran, Islamic Republic of
 

The present study aims to find out the role of personality traits in the prediction choice and use of the Compensatory English Language Learning Strategies (CELLSs) for learners of English as a foreign language. Four instruments were used, which were Adapted Inventory for Compensatory English Language Learning Strategies based on Compensation category of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) of Rebecca L. Oxfords (1990), A Background Questionnaire, NEO-Five Factors Inventory (NEO-FFI), and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Two hundred and thirteen Iranian female university level learners of English language as a university major in Iran, volunteered to participate in this study. The intact classes were chosen. The results show that however, there is a significant relationship between each of three traits of personality and the choice and use of the cells, but personality traits cannot be a strong predictor to predict the choice and use of the CELLSs.

Keywords

Compensation Category of Language Learning Strategies, English Learning, Personality Traits
User

  • Block J (1995) A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychol. Bulletin. 117, 187-215.

  • Brown HD (2001) Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Cattel RB and Butcher H (1968) The prediction of achievement and creativity. NY: Bobbs-Merrill.

  • Chamorro-Premuzie T, Furnham A and Lewis M (2007) Personality and approaches to learning predict preference for different teaching method. Learning & Individual Differences. 17, 241-250.

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Cook V (2008) Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

  • Costa PT and McCare RR (1988) Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of selfreports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory. J. Personality & Social Psychol. 54(4), 853-863.

  • Costa PT and McCare RR (1992) Professional Manual for the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychol. Assessment Res.

  • De Vellis RF (2003) Scale development: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

  • Delavar A (2010) Theoretical and experimental principle of research in human sciences. Tehran. Roshd Publi.

  • Digman JM and Inouye J (1986) Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. J. Personality & Social Psychol. 50,116-123.

  • Digman JM (1989) Five robust traits dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. J. Personality. 57(1), 195-214.

  • Ehrman ME and Dornyei Z (1998) Interpersonal dynamics in second language education. Visible & invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

  • Ellis R (1985) Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

  • Ellis R (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

  • Eysenck HJ (1967) The biological basis of personality. NY: Springfield.

  • Eysenck HJ (1992) Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality & Individual Differences. 13, 667- 673.

  • Eysenck HJ (1997) Personality and exponential psychology: The unification of Psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 73, 1224-1237.

  • Foster JJ (1998) Data analysis using SPSS for window: A beginner’s guide. Thousand, Oaks, California: Sage Publi.

  • Gall MD Gall JP and Borg WR (2003) Educational research: An Introduction (7 ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

  • Ghiasvand A (2008) Application of statistics and SPSS in data analysis. Tehran: Lovieh Publi.

  • Goldberg LR (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Rev. Personality & Soc. Psychol. Beverrly Hills, CA: Sage. 2; 141-165.

  • Goldberg LR (1990) An alternative description of personality: The big five factor structure. J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 59, 1216-1229.

  • Golkar M and Yamini M (2007) Vocabulary, proficiency and reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix. 7 (3), 88-112.

  • Hampson SE and Colman AE (1995) Individual differences and personality. NY: Longman.

  • Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Res. Methods. 1(1), 104-121.

  • Horwitz EK (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language J.. 72(13), 283-294.

  • Horwitz EK (1999) Cultural and situational influences on language learners’ beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557- 576.

  • Hsiao TY and Oxford RL (2002) Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language J. 86(3), 368-383.

  • John OP (1990) The big five factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the nature language and in the questionnaire. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory & Res. NY: Guliford Press. pp: 66-100.

  • Johnson B (2001) Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Edu. Res. 30(2), 3-13.

  • Kalantari K (2008) Data processing and analysis in socio-economic research. Tehran: Farhang Saba Publisher.

  • Larsen-Freeman D and Long MH (1991) An introduction to second language acquisition research. NY: Longman.

  • Marttinen M (2008) Vocabulary learning strategies used by upper secondary school students studying English as a second language. (Online) M.A. Dissertation. Retrieved fromMarch20,2010, from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/ 18447/URN_NBN_fi_jyu200803261288.pdf?sequenc e=1

  • McAdams DP (1992) The five-factor model in Personality: A critical appraisal. J. Personality. 60, 329-361.

  • McCare RR and Costa PT (1985) Updating Norman’s adequate taxonomy: Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. J. Personality & Psychol. 49, 710- 721.

  • Moemeni M (2007) Statistical analysis with SPSS. Tehran: Ketab neo Publi.

  • Newton RR and Rudestam KE (1999) Your statistical consultant: Answers to your data analysis questions. California: Sage Publ, Inc.

  • Norman WT (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in per nomination personality ratings. J. Abnormal & Soc. Psychol. 66, 574-583.

  • Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • Oxford RL (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

  • Oxford RL (1992) Instructional implications of gender differences in second/foreign language learning styles and strategies. Appli. Language Learning. 4(1& 2), 65-94.

  • Oxford RL (1993) Individual differences among your ESL students: Why a single method can’t work. J. English Studies. 7, 27-42.

  • Oxford RL (1994) Language learning strategies: An update. (Online) Online resources: Digest. Retrieved March08, 2011, from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/oxford01.html.

  • Oxford RL (1996) Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Appl. Language Learning. 7(1& 2), 25-45.

  • Oxford RL and Burry-Stock J (1995) Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System. 23(1), 1-23.

  • Oxford RL and Cohen A (1992) Language learning strategies: crucial issues of concept and classification. Appl. Language Learning. 3 (1& 2), 1- 35.

  • Oxford RL and Crookball D (1989) Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language J. 73(4), 404- 419.

  • Oxford RL and Ehrman M (1995) Adult’s language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System. 23(3), 359- 386.

  • Oxford RL and Nyikos M (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language J. 73(3), 291-300.

  • Pallant J (2007) (3rd ed). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unmin.

  • Perera M and Eysenck SBG (1984) A cross-cultural study of personality: Sri Lanka and England. J. Cross Cultural Psychol. 15(3), 353-371.

  • Riazi AM (1999) A dictionary of research methods: Quantitative and qualitative. Tehran: Rahnama Publ. pp.198.

  • Saklofske DH and Eysenck SBG (1998) Individual differences in children and adolescents (Eds.). New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.

  • Saucier G and Goldberg LR (1996). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives. Eur. J. Personality. 7, 1-17.

  • Skehan P (1989) Individual differences in secondlanguage learning. London: Edward Arnold.

  • Toyoda E (1998) Teaching kanji by focusing on learners’ developing of graphemic awareness. Australian Rev. Appl. Linguistics. 21(15), 155-168.


Abstract Views: 382

PDF Views: 109




  • The Role of Personality Traits in the Choice and Use of the Compensation Category of English Language Learning Strategies

Abstract Views: 382  |  PDF Views: 109

Authors

Seyed Hossein Fazeli
Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The present study aims to find out the role of personality traits in the prediction choice and use of the Compensatory English Language Learning Strategies (CELLSs) for learners of English as a foreign language. Four instruments were used, which were Adapted Inventory for Compensatory English Language Learning Strategies based on Compensation category of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) of Rebecca L. Oxfords (1990), A Background Questionnaire, NEO-Five Factors Inventory (NEO-FFI), and Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Two hundred and thirteen Iranian female university level learners of English language as a university major in Iran, volunteered to participate in this study. The intact classes were chosen. The results show that however, there is a significant relationship between each of three traits of personality and the choice and use of the cells, but personality traits cannot be a strong predictor to predict the choice and use of the CELLSs.

Keywords


Compensation Category of Language Learning Strategies, English Learning, Personality Traits

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2012%2Fv5i6%2F30489