Introversion and Extroversion in SLA
The purpose of this
essay is the extroversion and introversion in the acquisition of a second
language. To begin it must be known what is meant by the extroverted and
introverted concept, so it will be discussed some different definitions to
contrast and understand them Afterwards, it has been defined the ‘Affective
filter hypothesis’ so as to understand the examples that we are going to
comment later. Finally to support the extroversion and introversion idea we
have collected different examples of studies in which the results reflect the
importance of the personality of the participants with respect to their
academic performance.
Many people tend to
confuse the fact of being an introverted person with shyness. Philip Zimbardo
and Bernardo Carducci, psychologists who study shyness, state that introverts
refer to those people who have both social skills and self-esteem even though
they tend to prefer loneliness instead of being surrounded by a big group of
people. In the case of shy people, they lack social skills and self-esteem,
what makes it more difficult for them than for the rest of the community, to
interact with people they do not know. In fact, they want to socialise but
their low or not even present self-esteem makes it difficult to meet new
people.
According to Myers
(2003), extrovert people are those who prefer to receive stimulation from the
outside world. Eysenck (1967) describes extroverts as sociable, expressive,
interactive, outgoing, that they act first, and then think about it, they do
not like being alone, they prefer being in company all the time; introverts, on
the contrary, are described as reserved, quiet, sensitive, they tend to think
what they are going to do before acting, and get tired of groups.
Eysenck (1991)
continues by saying that extroverts and introverts sometimes show differences
in the accuracy and speed of interchange when they speak, particularly
performing in an L2. He proposes that extroverts are better than introverts
when they have to perform under stress, they are better at lowering their
anxiety levels.
According to Matthews
(1992), extroverts are more successful in depositing the several spoken inputs
they receive than introverts. Eysenck (1981) claims that introverts feel the
necessity for more time to recover the information they store in their long
term memory. Eysenk (1981) sustains that the contrast between introverts and
extroverts memory processing may be caused by the considerable stimuli that
introverts perceive. Hence, as introverts are in more tension, difficult for
them to tolerate, when they are producing output, their performance lacks
eloquence. This incentive provokes the advantage of extroverts who surpass
introverts under pressure.
Introverts are
inclined to feel that their personality is not good, or that there is something
bad with them because extroverts sometimes do not understand their preference
to stay alone for some time or their rejection to socialise. This leads to the
assumption by introverts that they have to look or act like extroverts so they
are not considered to be awkward people. Some extrovert famous people that all
of us know are Jim Carrey, Will Smith or Margaret Thatcher, in the opposite we
find introvert people as Bill Gates, JK Rowling or Steven Spielberg, and shy
people like Lady Gaga.
According to Ni
(2012) affective factors are important aspects to take into consideration when
dealing with L2 acquisition. These factors include among other aspects:
motivation, attitude, self-confidence, anxiety… and, they are ones of the
biggest influences in the input and output of the second language. In the cases
where they are taken into account by teachers, they are clearly helpful for
teachers to improve their own teaching quality and for the students’ integral
development in the language.
In the early 1870’s, Dulay
and Burt proposed the Affective Filter Hypothesis and explained its influence
on the FL learning process. Later, Krashen (1981) would develop and perfect
this hypothesis, dividing it into five sub-hypothesis: the Acquisition-learning
hypothesis, the Natural order hypothesis; the Monitor hypothesis; the Input
hypothesis and the Affective Filter Hypothesis, and this last sub-hypothesis is
the one that it is going to be developed in order to explain the extroversion
and introversion in students.
Krashen argued that
the affective filter is a psychological obstacle that prevents language
learners from taking comprehensible input. He asserted that this filter reduces
the amount of input that the learner is able to understand, and this is related
with the difference between input and intake (being input all the knowledge
available for the learner and intake the knowledge internalised by the student)
because affective factors determine their proportions. For this reason,
negative affective factors or emotions will often be more likely to prevent
this internalisation of the language input, and on the contrary, positive
emotions will usually be in favour to promote the efficiency of the process.
When language
learners have, for instance, a higher motivation, much self-confidence, and
lower levels of anxiety, they will have low affective filters and thus, they
will receive and take more input. On the other hand, learners with lower
motivation, little self-confidence, and a higher level of anxiety will have
high affective filters and therefore, they will obtain little input. This
theory shows that emotional factors strongly affect learners in the form they
acquire a language and that attempts should be made in order to have lower
affective filters and the students feel less stressed and confident in a
comfortable learning atmosphere.
Historically, two
main reasons have been given to show the importance of focusing on the
affective filter in education. According to Arnold (2002), the first main
reason is that if teachers focus their attention on affective aspects, it could
lead to a more effective language learning and secondly, he asserts that it
could also contribute to the whole-person development, which is beyond of just
teaching a language, because it also influences student’s personality. And this
is the moment when it can be seen its influence in extroverted and introverted
students, being extroverted students the ones that have lower affective filters
and introverted students the ones that have higher affective filter.
Carrell, Prince and
Astika (1996) did research on the relationship between them and their academic
performance during a semester with a group of 76 students. The results of the
MBTI come from some tests of vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, and grammar.
Thus, they saw that the students were divided into introverts and extroverts
almost equally. It is important to know that just a little relationship was
found between E-I and their performance in the tests. The authors gave two
reasons to explain the weak relationship between personality and the measure of
language performance. The first reason is that the maturity and the cognitive
levels of the students are not indicated with their personality, being related
to the effectiveness of the students at the time of applying the cognitive
resources. The second reason is that personality is not such a reliable
indicator in the relationships between language learning variables as a more
reliable indicator like language aptitude.
Wakamoto (2000)
analyses the relationship between introverts and extroverts with respect to
language acquisition in a study with 254 Japanese university women specialised
in English. He employed the MBTI and the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) to see what Language Learning Strategies (LLS) the students
used. His objective with this study was to demonstrate the importance of
introversion and extroversion in learning English within Japanese secondary
classrooms. Wakamoto said that groups of 40 students per teacher it is difficult
to identify the individual learner differences (ID) and LLS. Wakamoto finds a
relationship between some strategies and extroversion: “functional practice
strategies” focused on the real use of language and not the form,and
“social-affective strategies” with extraverted students’’, the self-control of
the affective domain. About introverted students, he found no correlation with
the LLS.
With regard to how
students receive input, an Indonesian research by Hasan and Yulianti (2018)
analyses the differences between extroversion and introversion in receptive
skills, particularly reading. In the study, 95 secondary school students were
examined and, all them were eleventh-grade students and have been studying
English for four years. Additionally, they categorised the students into highly,
average or poorly introverted. So as to classify the students into
different categories, they used the method suggested by Carter (2005).
Nevertheless, the majority of well-known methods were designed in relation to
Western cultures, which are very different to Asian cultures. Hasan and
Yulianti seemed to be aware of this cultural aspect and modified Carter’s
questionnaire in order to adapt it to Indonesian culture. Moreover, in order to
make the reading test as valid and reliable as possible, they selected a
multiple choice activity to evaluate their reading comprehension. The mean
score of highly introverted students was 77’41% whereas poorly introverted
students’ mean score was 36’67%. Furthermore, the Serial Correlation
Coefficient (r) was calculated (r=0.88) and showed that the higher the
introversion, the higher the score for reading comprehension (Hasan and
Yulianti 2018, 226-227). The result of this study can be connected with the
superiority of logical thinking that introverted people have. Indeed, they
usually overuse their cognitive resources so that they have slower but deeper
processing capacities.
Taking into
consideration oral production, Thorne (1987) observed the impact between
extroverts and introverts in the conversation style. Her research was based on
52 women who took the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator), which is a
self-help assessment test which helps people gain insights about how they work
and learn. It is a framework for relationship-building, developing positivism,
and achieving excellence) distinguishing between extroverts and introverts
groups: 26 E, 26 I. These groups formed pairs to talk and have conversations
about them in order to know each other (somehow). Thus, three different types
of couples were created: similar pairs were made up of introverts with
introverts (I/I), or extroverts with extroverts (E/E). The third group
consisted of introverts and extroverts pairs (I/E). The intention of the
investigation was that all the participants arrive at the same session for not
to know or interact each other before. The pairs were organised so that each
member had a conversation with a similar and different partner. They are
analysed and compared with each other, resulting in 52 conversations: (13
E/E,13 I/I ,and 26 I/E). As a result, extrovert couples treated many different
topics and found more in common between each other during the conversation,
being more positive and broad. However, the topics that were discussed in the
conversations between introverts were serious, focusing on their problems. It
is hard to establish a good conversation when one person is optimistic and the
other is serious or pessimist.
Years later, a
research conducted in the University College London by Dewaele and Furnham
(2000) studied the extent to which introversion and extroversion have an effect
on spontaneous oral production. The subjects of the study were 25 Flemish
students between 18 and 21 years old who were studying French as a foreign
language for 6-8 years. In order to measure the degree of
introversion/extroversion, researchers used the Eysenck Personality Inventory.
The participants were recorded talking about everyday topics for 10 min and
then, the errors were analysed and classified according to different variables
in both informal and formal situations as it can be seen in (Dewaele and
Furnham 2000, Table.1). The results illustrated that extroverted students were
better at implicit speech style and speech rates, which result in a more fluent
speech. On the other hand, introverted students showed a high proportion of
‘er’, which demonstrates hesitation, particularly in formal situations.
Moreover, the results illustrated that introverted students used a wider range
of lexicon in formal situations and, their tendency to use longer and complex
utterances even in an informal situation. The lexical richness can be
explained, as the researchers point out, due to ‘the introverts’ better long
term memory where the mental lexicon is stored’ (Dewaele and Furnham 2000,
361). Moreover, Dewaele and Furnham suggest that the use of complex utterances
in informal situations is a reflection of the cognitive efforts introverts make
when they are not under pressure. However, when they are stressed, i.e. during
formal situations, introverts have ‘less cognitive resources at their disposal,
their utterances become shorter, their speech is less fluent and there are more
unintended pauses’ (Dewaele and Furnham 2000, 362). That is the reason why they
conclude in their study that the aspects that affect introverted people in a
negative way are the formality of the situation and the interpersonal stress
(Dewaele and Furnham, 2000, 362).
A more recent
research by Cheng, Jiang and Mu (2015) analyses the differences in speaking
between introverted and extroverted students. In fact, 117 students were tested
between 18 and 21 years old who were studying English for at least 7 years. In
order to have more reliable and valid data when measuring personality, the
researchers opted to take into consideration both an adaptation of the Eysenck
Personality Scale to Chinese culture and a self-report questionnaire. So as to
test their proficiency in spoken production, researchers chose the CET format
to measure their level of English. The researchers found interesting the fact
that all introverted students considered their personality not to be an
advantage for L2 oral production whereas 31% extroverted students found
themselves in an advantageous position (Cheng et al. 2015, 583). However, the results
they obtained do not correspond to their expectations because Spearman’s
Correlation Coefficient is -0.002, which demonstrates that the correlation
between L2 oral production and personality is not significant (Cheng et al.
2015, 584). That is the reason why, these researchers claim that ‘the possible
explanation is that the subjects chosen for the study, who are all English
majors, are strongly motivated to study oral English well. And motivation
propels them to find appropriate ways to improve their oral English’ (Cheng et
al. 2015, 584). Therefore, they regard motivation as a relevant factor for L2
acquisition to overcome the difficulties of learners’ personalities.
Robson (1994)
conducted a study with female university students in Japan, measuring their
personalities with the Japan-specific Yatabe/Guilford Personality
Inventory and comparing with the TOEFL scores. Robson also used voluntary
participation in recorded oral English classes, which were analysed. Thus he
discovered that extroverted students who showed active social relationships
were much more likely to participate in oral English classes than introverted
students.
As it has been
demonstrated, it is important that learners realise their abilities and their
skills when acquiring a language. Being an introvert or an extrovert should not
be an aspect to worry about. If learners work on improving their ‘weaknesses’,
they will be able to develop language skills regardless of their personalities.
Indeed, the most important aspect is motivation. If their motivation is low,
they will not make enough effort in order to be successful in their
objective. In addition, it can be said that extroverts have more advantages
than introverts when it comes to second language acquisition. Their social
skills and abilities to control the pressure and anxiety when they practice the
L2 makes it easier to process the input they receive and to produce a decent
and smooth output. Obviously, it is clear that the affective filter plays a
major role when people are learning a second language. It depends on their
self-esteem, for instance, when they are learning a language. If students have low self-esteem they would try to avoid practicing or using the L2 in order
to not feel they are not making a fool of themselves.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Altunel, V. (2015) The impact of extroversion and introversion on language learning in an input-based EFL setting, University of Kansas.
Arnold, J. (2000) Affect in Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Cheng, Y., Jiang, Y. and Mu, Z. (2015) ‘A Survey Study: The Correlation between Introversion/Extroversion and Oral English Learning Outcome’, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(3), 581-587.
Dewaele, JM. and Furnham, A. (2000) ‘Personality and Speech Production: A Pilot Study of Second Language Learners’, Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 355-365.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967) The biological basis of personality (Vol. 689): Transaction publishers.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979) ‘Anxiety, learning, and memory: A reconceptualisation’, Journal of research in personality, pp. 363-385.
Eysenck, M. W. (1981) ‘Learning, memory and personality’, In: H. Eysenck, ed. A Model for Personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 169-209.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991) Manual of the Eysenck personality scales (EPS Adult): London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Hasan, S. and Yulianti, N. (2018) ‘Introversion Personality and Students’ Reading Comprehension’, Indonesian Journal of Integrated English Language Teaching, 4(2), 218-229.
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Matthews, G. (1992) ‘Extraversion’, In D. M. J. P. A. Smith (Ed.), Handbook
of Human.
Performance: State and Trait (Vol. 3, pp. 367-396). London: Academic Press.
Mudore, C.F. (2002). Are you an introvert?, Scholastic Inc, Stamford.
Myers, I. (2003). MBTI manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Mountain View, California: CPP.
Ni, H. (2012) ‘The effects of affective factors in SLA and pedagogical implications’, Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(7).
Robson, G.L. (1994) Relationships between personality, anxiety, proficiency and participation (Doctoral dissertation). Temple University Japan. (UM I No.9512864).
Thorne,A. (1987) ‘The press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts and extraverts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 718-726.
Venugopalan, M. (2000). The relationship between extroversion/introversion and university -level ESL language proficiency, University of Kansas.
Wakamoto,N.(2000) ‘Language learning strategy and personality variables:
Focusing on extroversión and introversion’, International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(1), 71-81.
