AUTHOR: NATSUMI WAKAMOTO

TITLE: Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extroversion and
introversion(FN1)
SOURCE: IRAL 38 no1 71-81 2000

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further
reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

ABSTRACT
In the research on individual differences, the influence of various factors on language learning has been studied.
This article discusses the relationship of personality factors, especially extroversion and introversion, and
language learning strategies. I implemented a descriptive study of 254 junior college student informants
majoring in English. Two instruments, MBTI for personalities, and SILL for language learning strategies were
used to gather information. Results showed a significant correlation of certain strategies with extroversion.

1. INTRODUCTION
In junior and senior high school classrooms in Japan where English is learned as a foreign language (EFL),
with large classes of forty students and only one teacher, it's quite difficult for teachers to take learners'
individual factors or learning strategies into consideration. Although teaching according to individual learner
preferences might be hard to implement, teachers' knowledge of how learners actually learn would be of great
help in making their teaching more effective.
According to Skehan (1989), there are various factors affecting the learning of English, such as intelligence,
language aptitude, motivation, age, personalities of learners, and so on. In this study I'd like to focus on the
personality factors of learners, especially on extroversion and introversion, and consider their influence on
language learning, because those traits might become very important in learning English with the increasing
trend of communicative language teaching in Japanese secondary classrooms. Lightbown and Spada (1993)
suggest that many classroom teachers are convinced that extroverts are more successful in language learning
and they also indicate the great possibility of extroverts' actual superiority in communicative ability in second or
foreign language learning.
However, the problem is that unlike sex or age, personality traits like extroversion or introversion are
invisible and thus the result of the teacher's subjective judgment. To judge and measure who are extroverts or
introverts, I employed Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a self-report type questionnaire, which was first
created by Isabel B. Myers in the 1960s and developed by her daughter Katharine C. Briggs based on Jung's
psychology. This instrument has been widely used for counseling, self-understanding, understanding others, and
career development in schools and companies. MBTI will offer the information on human character by dividing
people into 16 types through combinations of the following four bi-polar items; extroversion versus
introversion, perceiving versus judging, sensing versus intuition, and thinking versus feeling.
With regard to learners' approaches to English learning, I implemented the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL), also a self-report questionnaire, developed by Oxford (1990) to see what kinds of language
learning strategies (LLS) learners are employing for learning English. Language learning strategies are defined
as "specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situations", (Oxford, 1990). By examining learners' strategies, we
can see how they are approaching English learning.
This study will discuss the range of learners' personalities in terms of extroversion or introversion, the
relationship between extroversion and introversion and LLS, and finally, some implications for teaching English
in classrooms.

2. BACKGROUND
Extroversion or introversion is a widely acknowledged concept, and it seems that one can judge whether
one's own personality is introverted or extroverted. However, it is also natural to say that people have both
personality traits. According to Sakano (1990), extroversion and introversion coexist in every person, but in a
different ratio and people are judged relatively extroverted or introverted. In other words, these personality traits
are not absolutely rigid. Thus, in this study I take these personality traits as relatively assumed.
Some research has been done on personality and language learning. One representative study is Ehrman and
Oxford's study (1990) on twenty adults learning Turkish, where the MBTI, the SILL and interviews were
employed as data collection measures. They included in their study all the sixteen personality types detected by
MBTI. However, focusing on just extroversion and introversion, they found an interesting relationship between
extroversion and introversion and LLS. Extroverts prefer social strategies, like cooperation with others or
asking for clarification, and functional practice strategies like seeking practice opportunities outside class. On
the other hand, introverts prefer learning alone best, avoiding social contact and surprise, and thus their
strategies clearly contrast with those of extroverts.

3. THE STUDY

3.1. OBJECTIVES
The major purposes of this study are: (1) to show the descriptive statistics of subjects' tendency for
extroversion and introversion; and (2) to determine differences in strategy use between extroverted learners and
introverted learners, that is, to identify the LLS most typically used by extroverted learners and introverted
learners.

3.2. SUBJECTS
The informants for this study were 254 junior college students majoring in English, who were all female and
aged from eighteen to nineteen. I excluded 32 students from this study because of their errors in implementing
the questionnaires or absences in either of the measurements stated below. As a result, the number of informants
examined in this study was 222 students.

3.3. METHODS
Two instruments were used for gathering data for this study: (1) MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator),
Japanese trial version form G; (2) SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) developed by Oxford
(1990) and translated into Japanese by Shishido and Ban (1994).
With regard to MBTI, among the four sets of bi-polar items, I just focused on extroversion versus
introversion. HRR Co. ltd, Tokyo, Japan has worked on developing a Japanese version of MBTI for several
years, which is completed with statistical validity and reliability. I used this Japanese trial version with the
cooperation of HRR.
With respect to SILL, it has two versions, one of 80 items for native speakers of English who would like to
learn other languages, and one of 50 items for speakers of other languages learning English. In this study I
adopted the Japanese translation of the latter version. Subjects responded to each item on a five-point Likert
scale indicating "never or almost never true of me", "usually not true of me", "somewhat true of me", "usually
true of me", "always or almost always true of me." These categories were assigned values of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
respectively. Thus higher scores indicates greater use of LLS.
I implemented these two kinds of inventories with the help of another teacher in the first year classes of the
junior college from April 12 to 25, 1995. As these classes were at the very beginning of the academic year in
Japan, any influence of the college curriculum can be excluded.

4. RESULTS

4.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of MBTI. In the original design of MBTI, the introversion scale
shows between 101-167 points and the extroversion scale shows between 99-33. I made them converse, in this
study, that is, extroversion for 101-167, and introversion for 33-99, for statistical convenience. As the mean of
MBTI indices in Table 1 shows, there are more extroverts than introverts as far as the informants in this study
are concerned.

4.2 FACTOR ANALYSIS

Next, the data from SILL consisting of fifty question items were factor-analyzed to extract underlying factors
with the following conditions. I set six factors to be extracted with varimax rotation afterwards, picking up
factor loadings more than .30, which as a result, accounted for 40.1% of the total variance. In some items, there
were more than .30 loadings on two or three factors, or every loading was below .30, where a more heavily
loaded factor was selected. The results are shown in Table 2.
Thirteen items are loaded on Factor 1. Some of the high-loaded items are listed below. These can be labeled
"functional practice strategies", where the focus of practice is on actual language use, not on the forms of
language.
14. I start conversations in English.
49. I ask questions in English.
17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English
On Factor 2, twelve items are loaded, which can be described as "strategies for maintaining communication",
which if not used would result in the breakdown of communication and as a result, make learning through
communication impossible. The high-loaded items are as follows.
 25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.
45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.
32. I pay attention when someone is speaking in English.
On Factor 3, nine items are loaded, which are summarized as "metacognitive strategies." They control
cognitive processes of learning by planning, evaluating or arranging learning processes. Some typical examples
are as follows.
33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.
37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
On Factor 4, eight items are loaded, which can be labeled "memory strategies, "as they help the learner to
memorize new words or phrases efficiently as listed below.
19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.
4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be
used.
On Factor 5, six items are loaded, categorized as "social- affective strategies", which mediate the relationship
between people or control one's affective domain. The examples are as follows.
44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.
48. I ask for help from English speakers.
Finally, on Factor 6, two items are loaded, summarized as "general study strategies", which help to improve
general learning in schools. The examples are as follows.
34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.
8. I review English lessons often.

4.3. CORRELATIONAL STUDIES

Next, the relationship between personality traits and LLS use will be discussed. Pearson's correlation method
was employed on the relationship between the extroversion-introversion indices in MBTI and the six factors
extracted in the factor analysis.
Table 3 shows that Factors 1 and 5 have a positive significant correlation with extroversion and that no
significant correlation was found with introversion. However, it should be noted that in Factors 4 and 6, the
direction of correlation was negative and there remains the possibility of introverts' superiority in these factors,
though no significant correlations were seen.
Next, the t-test on the differences in strategy use by extroverts and introverts was implemented because
Pearson's correlation does not automatically guarantee the high use of Factor 1 or 5 strategies by extroverts. For
the t-test, I set the following two groups: introverts' group (I-Group): the indices of MBTI are between 46 to 99
with 91 subjects; and extroverts' group (E-Group), picking up the same number of subjects with I-Group from
the most extroverted to less with the indices of MBTI from 158 to 114.
Table 4 shows we could observe the statistically significant differences of strategy use in Factors 1 and 5.
That is, extroverts are using Factor 1 and 5 strategies significantly more than introverts.
In terms of individual LLS, significant positive correlations between LLS and extroversion in 16 SILL items
and no significant correlations between LLS and introversion were observed. Next, I examined the differences
of LLS use between I-Group and E-Group with the same procedures as above. As a result, significant
differences of strategy use were observed in eight items as shown in Table 5, which all showed the extroverts
superior to the introverts.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1. EXTROVERSION-INTROVERSION DIVERSITIES

One of the important objectives of this study was to see the range of student personality in regard to
extroversion and introversion. I found great variance of subjects from very introverted to very extroverted. In
general, Japanese are said to be introverted people, but it's interesting that there exist big differences within the
same nationality. (Unfortunately, the source for comparison with other countries is not provided in this MBTI
Japanese trial version.) Unlike gender distinctions, these kinds of personality traits are invisible and teachers in
classrooms might not be aware of who the extroverts and introverts are, or even care about these personality
traits. Nevertheless, these individual differences might be important for language learning as I will discuss in
the next section.

5.2. EXTROVERSION-INTROVERSION AND LLS

First of all, let's have a brief look at the results of the factor analysis. The order of factors extracted is
interesting as functional practice strategies or strategies for communication are listed at the top. This may be
caused by the informants of this study who are all majoring in English with presumably high motivation to learn
English, especially for communication. This is one of the limitations of this study as well as an interesting point
to be discussed compared to other subjects majoring in other fields where completely different factors and order
may be seen.
Let us turn now to the relationships between extroversion and strategy use which is the highlight of this
study. Overall, the strong relationships were confirmed.
In terms of factors extracted, extroversion significantly correlated with functional practice strategies (Factor
1) and social-affective strategies (Factor 5). Functional practice strategies are contrasted with formal practice
strategies where the focus is on the language form, grammatical accuracy, or accuracy of pronunciation. While
admitting the importance of formal practice strategies, it's natural that the real use of language in speaking or
writing or in any mode will improve communicative competence because functional practice strategies like
starting conversations in English or asking questions in English is the practice in real and naturalistic settings.
In previous studies (Bialystok 1981; Huang and Van Naerssen 1987; Wakamoto 1992, 1993), functional practice
strategies were found to play a crucial role in language learning, especially for communication. With social-
affective strategies which ask other persons for help or control one's affective domain, we may say that
extroverts are on the inside track for learning English for communication.
In terms of specific LLS, as Table 5 reveals, I could observe eight LLS significantly more employed by
extroverts. Of these eight, "encouraging myself to speak English even when being afraid of making a mistake"
should be noted, which is popular with the average use of 2.32. This is a risk-taking strategy and extroverts try
to speak out with few inhibitions. Rubin (1975) or Naiman, et al. (1978) indicate that good language learners
are willing to make mistakes or able to laugh at their own mistakes and overcome inhibition in order to
communicate and to learn. Actually, in and out of class in Japan, we can easily find lots of students who won't
speak out or attempt to communicate with native speakers of English. We may say that this LLS is very
important.
Other LLS which should be noted are asking questions in English and asking help from English speakers.
These are strategies asking for clarification or verification, which are considered to be in the set of risk-taking
strategies. Getting a clear understanding of information by asking questions is important in communicating in
one's mother tongue, but even more so in foreign language learning. Through clarification requests, learners can
get repeated speech at slower speed or modified input where perceived difficult expressions are usually
paraphrased with less difficult words. In other words, using these LLS, learners can get the interactive modified
input from the speakers. In this sense we can say these asking strategies are also important.
With respect to introverts, we could not confirm any preferred LLS in terms of factors or individual
strategies, unlike the Oxford and Ehrman study. This result seems too clear cut, and I wonder if there are some
introvert-specific LLS which are preferred strategies for them and I wonder if the data collection method might
have affected the results. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) recommend employing multiple data collection
methods, where more than one method are combined to elicit data, such as questionnaire plus interviews or
interviews plus think-aloud. In this sense, I must recognize the limitations of self-report questionnaires; this is
one of the limitations of this study and further methods should be added in future research.

5.3. IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING

The implications of this study for English teaching in classrooms lie in the following three perspectives.
The first is strategy training for students in which useful strategies for effective language learning are taught.
Introverts might be trained in strategies used by extroverts, such as, social-affective strategies or functional
strategies which encourage the practice of English in real or quasi-real communication. If they were able to use
these LLS, introverts could extend their real use of language, enhance input, and learn to negotiate or cooperate
with people. Extrovert preferred LLS, however, which are basically communication and outer world oriented,
are excellent in bringing the delight of communication, also accompanying risk or fear. Planning to teach
strategies is right, though we have to make deliberate plans to immerse students in these LLS naturally.
Especially for that purpose, making the low-risk climate for students is vital in the large-class size conditions in
Japan.
The second is regarding modes of learning. For creating a low-risk classroom climate, the first thing to do is
to make small groups and get learners to practice or try various kinds of strategies or activities where students
feel less risk or tend not to fear making mistakes. The next thing to consider is how to make groups, that is, how
to combine students. One implication of this study is to think about making groups from the perspective of
personality traits. Further research is needed, but one possibility is combining the extroverts and introverts, and
offering them the chance to learn from their respective characteristics or preferred LLS.
The final implication is also concerned with modes of learning. In terms of risk-taking, speaking in person
undeniably involves risk and students get nervous. Besides, teachers as well as students seem to attach great
importance to speaking with the present emphasis on communicative language teaching. This is right in putting
stress on communication, but wrong in overlooking possibilities in communication through writing. Especially
in the so-called internet era, communication through e-mail is now within reach of everyone and opens the road
to easy communication through writing. Learners don't have to feel pressured to speak. They can just sit in front
of the computer, read the messages received, and take their time to type in their ideas. This must be good news
for everyone, especially for introverts. We can count this as one mode of communication and one mode of
English class.

6. CONCLUSIONS
This study points to the following conclusions.
(1) We could see the range in the variance of learners' extroversion and introversion.
(2) We could see the significantly correlated LLS for extroverts, which are labeled functional practice
strategies and social-affective strategies.
(3) With regard to introverts, we could see no preferred LLS; however, this might have been caused by the
data collection method.
(4) We could see some implications for teaching: ideas for strategy training and ideas for creating a low-risk
climate in the classroom, using various modes of learning.
ADDED MATERIAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to HRR Co. ltd, for offering the MBTI Japanese trial version, especially to Hideyuki Nimura,
Noriko Yamagata and Masayuki Iizuka for their support and information on MBTI. I would like to express my
gratitude to my colleagues, Hiroshi Mine for his advice on statistical analysis, and to Barbara Fujiwara for her
correcting stylistic errors in this paper. I would also like to thank Hideyuki Takashima of Hyogo University of
Teacher Education for shaping my ideas through his writings. Any errors, of course, are mine.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics: MBTI

Mean SD. Min. Max.

E/I 106.7 28.75 45 159

Note: Range: Introversion: 33-99, Extroversion: 101-167.

Table 2. Factor analysis for SILL

Factor Eigenvalue Variance Cumulative variance

1 9.6392 19.3 19.3
2 2.4196 4.8 24.1
3 2.3187 4.6 28.8
4 2.1726 4.3 33.1
5 1.8703 3.7 36.8
6 1.6336 3.3 40.1

Table 3. Pearson's correlation coefficients between extroversion/introvversion and six factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

r .174 .074 .107 -.055 .131 -.071
p .005(FN**) .138 .057 .208 .026(FN*) .146

FOOTNOTES
** p < .01.
* p < .05.
Table 4. T-test for differences between I-Group and E-Group

Factor t-value df Sig.

Factor 1 2.86 180 .005(FN**)
Factor 5 2.17 180 .031(FN*)

FOOTNOTES
** p < .01.
* p < .05.
Table 5. Significant correlations: Extroversion/introversion and SILL in the result of T-tests for differences
between I-Group and E-Group
No. SILL Mean r t-value
47 I practice English with other students. 1.38 .234(FN**) 3.45(FN**)
40 I encourage myself to speak English even 2.32 .185(FN**) 2.08(FN**)
when I am afraid of making a mistake.
26 I make up new words if I do not know the 1.26 .170(FN**) 2.30(FN*)
right ones in English.
49 I ask questions in English. 1.84 .160(FN**) 2.17(FN*)
48 I ask for help from English speakers. 2.19 .156(FN*) 2.05(FN*)
14 I start conversation in English. 1.58 .149(FN*) 2.34(FN*)
16 I read for pleasure in English. 2.15 .146(FN*) 2.35(FN*)
15 I watch English language TV shows spoken 2.27 .134(FN*) 2.14(FN*)
in English or go to movies spoken in En-
glish

FOOTNOTES
** p < .01.
* p < .05.
t-value: the comparison between I-Group and E-Group, Mean: the average strategy use of all subjects
(N=222).

FOOTNOTES
1. This is a revised version of paper presentation at the 1996 Annual Conference of Language Laboratory
Association (LLA) held at Takushoku University in Tokyo.
2. Natsumi Wakamoto is an associate professor of the department of English at Doshisha's Women's College of
Liberal Arts in Kyoto, Japan, where he teaches courses in L2 learning and teaching. He is interested in computer
assisted language learning, teachers' beliefs in teacher training, and factors affecting the individual differences
of EFL learners especially, language learning strategies.
Address correspondence to Natsumi Wakamoto, Department of English, Doshisha's Women's College of
Liberal Arts. Kodo, Kyotanabe-shi, Kyoto 610-0395, Japan; email: nwakamot@adwc.doshisha.ac.jp

REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language
Journal 65, 24-35.
Briggs, K.C. and I.B. Myers. (1995). Myers-Briggs type indicator. Japanese trial version form G. Tokyo:
HRR.
Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training
setting. Modern Language Journal 74, 311-28.
Huang, X. and M. Van Naerssen. (1987). Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics 8,
287-307.
Lightbown, P. and N. Spada. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moody, R. (1988). Personality preferences and foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 72, 389-
401.
Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H.H. Stern and A. Todesco. (1978). The Good Language Learner. Toronto: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
O'Malley, J.M. and A.H. Chamot. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury
House.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quartely 9, 41-51.
Sakano, Noboru (1990). Muishiki no Nou Shinrigaku. Tokyo: Aokishoten (in Japanese).
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. New York: Edward Arnold.
Wakamoto, N. (1992). A comparative study of differences in the uses of learning strategies between effective
and less effective learners in an EFL context. Unpublished Mater's thesis. Hyogo University of Teacher
Education.
Wakamoto, N. (1993). A study on individual differences and learning strategies of learners. Step Bulletin 5,
9-24 (in Japanese).
Wakamoto, N. (1996). Study on the relationship between personalities and English learning. Proceedings of
the Language Laboratory Association of Japan 36th Annual Convention 42-43 (in Japanese).