The Relationship Between Iranian EFL Students’ Personality Traits, Gender and Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies
الموضوعات : نشریه مطالعات آموزش زبان انگلیسی
Hamed Badpa
1
,
Leila Alinouri
2
1 - Department of English Language and Literature, Arak University, Arak, Iran
2 - English Department, Isfahan(Khorasgan), Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Personality Traits, Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Support Strategies, Global Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies,
ملخص المقالة :
This study examines the connection between Iranian EFL students’ personality traits, gender, and their use of metacognitive reading strategies. A correlational research design was used, incorporating two survey tools: the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) and the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS). The data were gathered from university students in Esfahan City. Descriptive analysis showed that students frequently used metacognitive reading strategies, with 18 strategies categorized as high-use, 12 as moderate-use, and none as low-use. While general and problem-solving strategies were commonly employed, support reading strategies were used at a moderate level. The results indicated a significant negative correlation between Neuroticism and the use of problem-solving and global strategies. In contrast, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness had strong positive correlations with problem-solving, global, and supportive strategies. However, overall metacognitive reading strategy use did not show a significant correlation with Neuroticism, whereas the other personality traits had a positive and meaningful association with the general use of these strategies. Gender differences were observed in the use of supportive and problem-solving reading strategies, with significant differences between male and female participants. These findings provide insights into how personality traits and gender influence metacognitive reading strategy use.
Ackerman, P. (1996). Intelligence as process and knowledge: An integration for adult development and application. In W. Rogers, & A. Fisk, et al. (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and application (pp. 139–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ackerman, P., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 219–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
Allport, G. W. (1963). Personality. Psychological Bulletin, 29(5), 359-360. 109 doi:10.1037/h0064126 and learning satisfaction. Business, Management and Education, 13(2), 175-202.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Teaching reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 67-86). New York: McGraw Hill Publishers.
Badpa, H. & Zare-Behtash, E. The Impact of Explicit and Implicit Corrective Feedback on the Writing Proficiency of Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL Learners. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation. 6(1) (2023), 144-162
Badpa, H. (2024). A New Perspective Towards Teaching Grammar: Inductive or Deductive? A Case Study of Iranian Elementary EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Translation Research, 4(2), pp.29-44.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. 4th Ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Busato, V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). The relation between learning style, the Big Five personality traits, and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 129–140.
Chamorro―Premuzic, T., & Fumham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092- 6566(02)00578-0
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO Personality Inventory R: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust traits dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 195-214.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, Language Attitudes and Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hermosa, N. (2002). The Psychology of Reading. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Open University.
Kamarulzaman, W. (2012). Critical review on the effect of personality on learning styles. Proceeding of the 2nd International conference on arts, social science, and technology. Penang, Malaysia, 3rd5th March 2012 Paper No: I2087 I2087-1.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading Language Learning: Cross-Linguistic Constraints on Second Language Reading Development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1
Skehan, P. (1989). The relationship between native and foreign language learning ability: Educational and linguistic factors. In H. W. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 83-106). Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
Trehearne, M. P., & Doctorow, R. (2005). Reading Comprehension: Strategies That Work. Comprehensive Literacy Resource: Grade 3-6 (Chapter 2). Retrieved from https://www.hand2mind.com/pdf/miriam/ch2_clr3_ 6.pdf
Zhang, L. (2001) Does the Big Five Predict Learning Approaches? Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 1431-1446.
