رابطه بین برو‌ن‌گرایی/درون‌گرایی، وابستگی به زمینه/استقلال از زمینه و تمایل فراگیران زبان انگلیسی به‌عنوان زبان خارجی برای برقراری ارتباط

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار،گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری رشته آموزش زبان انگلیسی-دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب-تهران-ایران

چکیده

هدف اصلی این مطالعه، بررسی تمایل فراگیران به برقراری ارتباط، ارتباط احتمالی بین سبک­های شناختی و تیپ‎های شخصیتی آنها است. برای انجام این تحقیق، 198 دانشجوی زبان انگلیسی (131 زن و 67 مرد) در مطالعه شرکت کردند. ابتدا، از طریق پرسش­نامه تیپ شخصیت آیزنک، فرم بزرگسالان (EPQ)، ویژگی‌های شخصیتی شرکت­کنندگان (درون‌گرایی/ برون‌گرایی) تعیین شد. در مرحله دوم، شیوه‌های شناختی مختلف شرکت‌کنندگان (وابستگی به زمینه و استقلال از زمینه) از طریق آزمون اشکال درهم­تنیده گروهی تعیین شد. پس از تکمیل پرسش­نامه‌های مربوطه، شرکت‌کنندگان به فراگیران درون‌گرا، فراگیران برونگرا، فراگیران وابسته به زمینه و فراگیران مستقل از زمینه تقسیم شدند و سپس از پرسش­نامه (WTC) برای تعیین تمایل فراگیران به برقراری ارتباط استفاده شد. از طریق همبستگی دو رشته‌ای نقطه‌ای و همبستگی پیرسون داده­ها مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده، یک رابطه معنادار بین سبک‌های شناختی و تمایل به برقراری ارتباط را نشان داد. مقایسه افراد وابسته به زمینه و مستقل از زمینه نشان داد که تمایل به برقراری ارتباط، در بین فراگیران وابسته به زمینه بالاتر بود. فراگیران برون‌گرا به­طور قابل ملاحظه­ای از وابستگی به زمینه بیشتری برخورداربودند و تمایل بیشتری به برقراری ارتباط در مقایسه با فراگیران درون‌گرا داشتند. مطالعه به اهمیت آگاه سازی فراگیران با سبک­های شناختی و تیپ­های شخصیتی آنها و توجه بیشتر به این متغیرها برای ارتقاء مهارت­های زبانی به­طور کلی و رابطه احتمالی این عوامل با افزایش تمایل به برقرای ارتباط در زبان خارجی به­طور اخص اشاره دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Relationship between Extroversion/Introversion, Field Dependence/Field Independence, and EFL learners’ Willingness to Communicate

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Bagheri Nevisi 1
  • Shiva Farmoudi 2
1 Associate Professor/Department of English Language and Literature, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
2 PhD student of TEFL - Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch - Tehran - Iran
چکیده [English]

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between EFL learners' cognitive styles, their personality types and their willingness to communicate. To this end, 198 English language students (131 females and 67 males) participated in the study. First, the participants' personality traits (introversion/extroversion) were determined through the Eysenck Personality Type Questionnaire, Adult Form (EPQ). In the second stage, the cognitive styles of the participants (field dependence and field independence) were determined through Group Embedded Figure test. Having distributed the relevant questionnaires among all the participants in a step-wise fashion, the researchers divided them into introverted/extrovert learners and field dependent/independent field learners, and finally the WTC questionnaire was administered to determine students' willingness to communicate. Data were analyzed through two-point correlation and Pearson correlation. The obtained results showed a significant relationship between cognitive styles and the desire to communicate. Comparison of individuals with field dependence and field independence showed that the tendency to communicate was higher among field dependent language learners. Extroverted language learners enjoyed significantly higher field dependence and were more inclined to communicate than introverted language learners. The study points to the importance of informing language learners about their cognitive styles and personality types and the need to pay more attention to these variables to improve language skills in general and the possible relationship between these factors and the increased tendency to communicate in foreign languages in particular.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • extroversion
  • introversion
  • Field independence
  • Field dependence
  • Willingness to communicate
Abedi, H., Fatemi Jahromi, A., & Anani Sarab, M. (2020). Exploring the effect of matching cognitive learning styles with focused written corrective feedback on English definite/indefinite article system learning, Journal of Foreign Language Research, 10(3), 602–617.
Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Izadi, A. (2018).  The impact of rhythmic teaching on the vocabulary knowledge of field dependent and field independent EFL learners.  Biannual Journal of Applications of Language Studies. 2(1), 75–105.
Blair, R. W. (1982). Innovative approaches language teaching. Newbury House.
Breen, M. P. (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research.          Harlow, England: Longman.
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Addison Wesley            Longman, Inc.
Burton, L. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2006). The relationship between personality, approaches to learning, and academic success in first-year psychology distance education students. Proceedings of the 29th HERDSA annual conference (pp,64–72): Critical visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching in Higher Education.
Busato, T. Crutchfield, R.S., & Woodworth, D.G. (2000). Teaching and learning in the        language classroom. Oxford University Press.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., (2007). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 319–338.
Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cornwell, S. & Robinson, P. (2000). Individual differences in foreign language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence, and motivation. Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University. London: Arnold.
Corr, P. J. (2016). Reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaires: Structural             survey with recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 89(2), 60–64.
Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. (2016) The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaire   (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1427–1440.   
De Raad, B. (2000). Differential psychology.  In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of           psychology (pp.41–44). American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second          language acquisition. Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.  In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (PP.589–630). Blackwell.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., & Dunleavy, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach             to learning, and academic performance. Personality and Individual Difference,          36(8),1907–1920.
Ellis, R. (1994). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies &C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–551). Blackwell.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck S.B.G (1974). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire   (adult and junior). Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, H. & Eysenck, S. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural            science approach. Plenum Press.
Fallen, L. (2006). Introversion: The often forgotten factor impacting the gifted. Journal of    Association for the Gifted Newsletter, 21(1), 1–7.
Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second language acquisition.             Journal of Canadian Psychology, 41(1), 10–24.
Junxia, B. L. (2011). Teaching the whole class. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Kiany, G. R. (1998). English proficiency and academic achievement in relation to extraversion:    A preliminary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1),113–128.
Marashi, H., & Moghadam, M. (2014). The difference between field independent and field dependent EFL learners' critical thinking and use of oral communication strategies.  International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 434–458.
Marashi, H., & Naddim, R. (2018). Using information gap and opinion gap tasks to improve introvert and extrovert learners’ speaking. Journal of Applied Research on English Language. 8(2), 187–206.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998).  Personality traits. Cambridge University Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive view. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 19–37.
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.369–388). University of Hawaii Press.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537–564.
MacIntyre, P. & Legatto, J.J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 149–171.
Peng, J.-E. & Woodrow, L. (2010) Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the    Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4): 834–876.
Perrott, E. (2014). Effective teaching: A practical guide to improving your teaching. Routledge.
Price, L. (2004). Individual Differences in Learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style, and learning style: Educational psychology. An International Journal of Experimental       Educational Psychology, 24(5), 681–698.
Radic-Bojanić, B. (2020). Relation of extraversion/introversion and foreign language proficiency in the EFL classroom. Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 8(4), 253–266.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1998). Field-independence in higher education and the case of distance            learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(2), 241–250.
Richards, J. C., & Schimidt, N. (2002). Dictionary of applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative language teaching: strategies and goals. In E. Hinkel             (ed.): Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp.39–52).   Erlbaum.
Sawyer, M.  & Ranta, L. (2001). Aptitude, individual differences, and instructional   design. In P.     Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Edward Arnold.
Tsakanikos, E. (2006). Associative learning and perceptual style: Are associated events perceived analytically or as a whole? Applied Linguistic, 40, 579–586.
Wakamoto, N. (2000). Extroversion/introversion in foreign language learning. Peter Long AG.
Wen, W. P., & Clément, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate       in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16(1), 18–38.
Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2016). Extraversion. In T. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp.39–52). Oxford University Press.  
Wyss, R. (2002). Field independent/dependent learning styles and L2 acquisition. Applied    Linguistics, 102(3),88–110.
Yashima, T. (2016).  Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL   context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.
Zafar, S., Khanand, Z., & Meenakshi, K.3 (2017). Extraversion-introversion tendencies and their     relationship with ESL proficiency: A study of Chinese students in Vellore, India.         Science& Humanities, 25(2), 678–703.
Zafar, T. A., & Meenakshi, S. (2012). Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations. RELC Journal, 38(1), 104–124.
Zarfsaz, E., & Takkac, M. (2014). Silence in foreign language learning: an analysis of students’       risk taking behavior in an EFL classroom. International Journal of Language        Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 6(3), 307–321.
Zarrinabadi, N., & Abdi, R. (2011). Willingness to communicate and language learning orientations in Iranian EFL context.            International Education Studies, 4(4), 206–214.
Zhang, L.F. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability? validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(5), 1295–1311.