861483

research-article20192019
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244019861483SAGE OpenHe

Original Research

SAGE Open

Personality Facets, Writing Strategy Use,

July-September 2019: 1­–15
© The Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019861483
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019861483

and Writing Performance of College journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Students Learning English as a Foreign

Language

Tung-hsien He1

Abstract
This study applied the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique to explore the predictive relations among personality
facets, writing strategy use, and writing performance of college students learning English as a foreign language (EFL). In
total, 201 participants composed an argument-based essay, before being surveyed using two self-report instruments: the
Personality Facet Scale (PFS), which measured 10 facets within the framework of the Five-Factor Model (FFM), and the
Writing Strategy Scale (WSS) that assessed six types of strategy. The established structural model indicated the following:
(a) Five types of strategy and six facets predicted writing performance, (b) nine facets predicted the use of at least one type
of strategy, either positively or negatively, and (c) the five types of strategy mediated the relations between the nine facets
and writing performance. As suggested, adding and treating strategy use as a mediator could help elaborate and elucidate the
facet–performance relations in the EFL writing context.

Keywords
personality facets, Five-Factor Model, writing strategy use, writing performance, EFL college students

Introduction Furthermore, researchers have classified individual strat-

Use and Taxonomy of Writing Strategies
Writing is a complex and dynamic activity that requires writ-
ers to initiate distinct behaviors to translate their abstract
thoughts into print. In the existing literature, these writing
behaviors are conceptualized and operationalized as writing
strategies to investigate their impact in a systematic manner.
For instance, He, Chang, and Chen (2011), who defined a
writing strategy as “behaviors adopted by writers to com-
plete their tasks” (p. 401), identified 21 distinctive writing
strategies used to complete essay writing by college students
learning English as a foreign language (EFL). Among these
strategies were compensation strategies, such as consulting
online dictionaries or using search engines to locate appro-
priate word choices or expressions. Monitoring or revising
strategies were also identified from these students’ behaviors
of checking their writing for grammatical and semantic con-
cerns, estimating quality of written discourses, assessing the
match between print and intended meanings, or rewriting
misleading or erroneous structures. As He and colleagues
concluded, by scrutinizing these strategies, exactly how col-
lege-level EFL writers approached and accomplished their
essay-writing tasks could be comprehended.
egies that share similar behaviors into respective types; they
then aggregated these types into a taxonomy to examine the
combined impact of distinctive strategy categories upon
writing. For instance, Oxford (1990) developed the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), accentuating that
all its six types of strategy could be applied to explore and
explain how non-native English-speaking (NNES) learners
(e.g., EFL students) composed their writing. Likewise,
Peñuelas (2012), who blended Oxford’s SILL and a writing
questionnaire devised by Petrić and Czárl (2003) to research
the strategy use of college students, formulated a six-type
taxonomy that includes Memory Strategy, Cognitive
Strategy, Metacognitive Strategy, Compensation Strategy,
Social Strategy, and Affective Strategy. Memory Strategy
comprises strategies that illustrate writers’ shared behaviors
of retrieving information by activating schemata to produce
1
National Taipei University of Education, Taipei City, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Tung-hsien He, Professor, Department of Children English Education,
National Taipei University of Education, #134, Section 2, Heping East
Road, Da-an District, Taipei City 10671, Taiwan.
Email: the@tea.ntue.edu.tw

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
written discourses (e.g., associating additional information
with keywords that have been memorized), whereas
Cognitive Strategy consists of individual strategies that have
the behaviors of understanding and producing written dis-
courses (e.g., summarizing, elaborating, or organizing
intended ideas). Strategies that illuminate the shared behav-
iors by revealing writers’ deliberate management to facilitate
writing quality are classified as Metacognitive Strategy (e.g.,
monitoring and/or evaluating quality of current writing, and/
or planning contents). Other strategies that share the behav-
iors of bridging the gap between intended ideas and language
deficits are grouped into the Compensation Strategy category
(e.g., using synonyms or coining words to replace unknown
vocabulary). Affective Strategy includes strategies that
reflect the distinguishable behaviors of writers’ regulating
their emotions (e.g., making positive statements on their own
writing), whereas Social Strategy collects strategies that sig-
nal writers’ behaviors of cooperating with others (e.g., ask-
ing for peers’ comments on drafts). This taxonomy gathers a
wide array of individual strategies, and it also encompasses
underexplored types of Social Strategy and Affective
Strategy. For these reasons, it would be an appropriate frame-
work for the present study to investigate the writing strategy
use of EFL college students.
Writing Strategy Use and Writing Performance
The literature within the EFL writing domain consistently
suggests that writing strategy use determines writing perfor-
mance (He, 2005). One line of research applies writing strat-
egy questionnaires to identify strategies used by EFL college
students, before relating the employment of such strategies
to writing performance (e.g., scores on essays). For instance,
Shawer (2016) adopted the SILL and identified Social
Strategy and Metacognitive Strategy as two positive predic-
tors of writing performance. In a comparable manner, Raoofi
and Yahya (2017), who used the same strategy scale, found
close associations between EFL college learners’ writing
performance and their use of Metacognitive Strategy,
Cognitive Strategy, and Affective Strategy. As evidenced by
these relations, EFL writers can facilitate the quality of their
writing once they constantly invest in cognitive engagement
(e.g., writing several drafts or moving paragraphs around),
suitably regulate and manage metacognitive efforts (e.g.,
monitoring or planning texts), aptly maintain emotional sta-
bility, and recurrently develop or alter ideas and thoughts
through social interactions with peers or writing instructors.
The other line of research places its focus on the strategy
use of writers with diverse writing proficiency levels, factor-
ing such writing strategy use into distinctive levels of writing
performance between high-proficiency writers and low-
proficiency counterparts. To illustrate, De Silva and Graham
(2015) demonstrated that the frequency for the high-ability
group of EFL college students to utilize both planning strate-
gies and self-monitoring strategies was higher than that of
the low-proficiency group. Another study by Raimes (1985)
reported that inexperienced writers who learned English as a
second language (ESL) were attentive only to local elements.
These writers simply revised mechanical aspects of their
essays without employing any other strategies to estimate
whether the words chosen, or the sentences constructed,
accurately expressed their intended meanings. Because revi-
sions were triggered only for grammatical concerns, those
confusing statements, ambiguous texts, and unclear ideas
stayed static. Accordingly, the comprehensibility of written
products was seriously compromised, even though the revi-
sion strategies had been applied. By contrast, Bereiter and
Scardamalia (1987) found that expert ESL writers cautious
about the readership of their essays frequently applied strate-
gies to plan their writing in advance toward the interest of
potential audiences. They also often used strategies to self-
monitor or evaluate their drafts, focusing not only on ungram-
matical usage or mechanical mistakes, but also on perplexing
expressions and unclear sentences. Once problematic dis-
courses had been detected, strategies were utilized to revamp
inappropriateness or correct inaccuracies. When difficulties
in revising drafts had taken place at either a lexical, syntac-
tic, or semantic level, compensation strategies were applied
to surmount such difficulties. In light of these findings, less-
able ESL/EFL college students simply monitor local ele-
ments of writing (e.g., spellings or punctuations) rather than
global elements (e.g., word choices or intended meanings);
they also seldom apply strategies to check writing quality. By
contrast, more-able writers employ strategies to properly
compensate their writing proficiency deficits, accurately
evaluate the quality of written discourses, effectively over-
come any issues that emerge, and appropriately manage their
limited cognitive resources. Benefiting from the use of these
strategies, more-able students can produce better written
products than less-able counterparts.
Personality Traits and Writing Strategy Use
of EFL College Students
Personality is found to act as an antecedent of strategy use by
learners who strive to acquire a language other than their
mother tongue. Some studies identify a close relation
between a personality trait, Introversion, and writing strategy
use (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Sharp, 2008). To illustrate,
Ehrman and Oxford (1990) argued that introverts selected
metacognitive strategies more frequently than did extraverts.
Similarly, Sharp (2008) discovered a negative relationship
between introversion and the use of social strategies. As
these associations suggest, learners are disposed by their per-
sonality characteristics to choose the strategies that meet
their predisposed temperaments. Introverts exhibit self-
knowledge and are interested in understanding details, so
they apply metacognitive strategies to make it easier for
them to process information or produce output. Such learners
are also distinguished as being reserved and non-gregarious,
He
so they reduce their use of social strategies that do not accord
to their personality characteristics.
Other studies show a positive association between another
personality trait, Extraversion, and writing strategy use of
EFL college students (Liyanage & Bartlett, 2013; Raoofi &
Yahya, 2017). To take Liyanage and Bartlett’s (2013) study
as an example, it illustrated that high Extraversion, accompa-
nied by low Neuroticism, was a predictor for the use of cog-
nitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social-affective
strategies, whereas Introversion did not assume such a pre-
dictive role. In a similar vein, Raoofi and Yahya (2017) found
that “personality traits such as extraversion appear to be a
crucial factor in determining the use of the social strategies”
(p. 196). In view of these findings, extraverts are gregarious,
assertive, and action-oriented; predisposed by this trait, they
may excitedly engage in writing tasks with full energy and
enthusiasm. To compose and improve writing, cognitive
strategies and metacognitive strategies are frequently
applied. In addition, as extraverts are sociable and fond of
interactions with acquaintances, they habitually choose
social strategies, such as sharing their written drafts, exchang-
ing writing ideas, asking for feedback, and seeking outward
help, to compose their writing.
As reviewed early, writing strategy use is a factor that
may considerably impact writing quality of EFL college stu-
dents, and it is also a function of personality traits of these
students. Nevertheless, the relationships between personality
types and strategy use established in the EFL writing field of
study are not always consistent. Although some studies show
that Extraversion is positively related to use of Metacognitive
Strategy and Social Strategy (e.g., Liyanage & Bartlett,
2013), other studies fail to recognize such relations (e.g.,
Sharp, 2008). Inevitably, this discrepancy of personality–
strategy relationship revealed needs more empirical evidence
for clarification. To this end, one adaptation should be con-
sidered when a new research attempt is set about. To illus-
trate further, as most EFL writing studies adopt either the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) or the Myers–
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure personality, their
discussions tend to focus on distinctions between Introversion
and Extraversion (Leaver, Ehrman, & Shekhtman, 2005). An
alternative personality framework that covers a wide range
of personality traits other than the Extraversion/Introversion
dichotomy should be taken into consideration. In this regard,
the Five-Factor Model (FFM) that covers five broad trait
domains (and 30 personality facets) may serve as an
appropriate framework to pinpoint personality–strategy–
performance relations in the EFL writing context.
The FFM: Its Traits and Facets
To explore the core constituents of personality, theorists
have applied the data-reduction technique to factor analyze
lexical scales that contain natural language adjectives or
theory-based questionnaires that include phrasal items (e.g.,
3
Eysenck, 1991). Five traits (also termed as “dimensions” or
“factors”), albeit named slightly differently, have consis-
tently emerged from such analyses (Goldberg, 1982;
McCrae, 1989, 1991). McCrae and John (1992) promoted
the application of the FFM by arguing that it was “a
hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of
five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to
Experience” (p. 175). Moreover, Goldberg (1982), who was
credited for his coinage of the “Big 5,” focused his efforts
on examining lexical data and recurrently identified five
personality factors, namely, Extraversion/Surgency,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Intellect. Along the line of the FFM, Soto and John (2009)
observed that “adults’ personality characteristics can be
organized in terms of five broad trait domains: Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Openness” (p. 84). Because the five traits are deemed to rep-
resent core essences of personality, the FFM has become the
most influential and dominant framework in contemporary
psychology (McCrae & Costa, 2004).
According to paradigms of the FFM (Costa & McCrae,
1992), Neuroticism describes characteristics of individuals
who tend to experience psychological distress, negative
affect, or disorders like anxiety, anger, hostility, depression,
or vulnerability. Extraversion depicts individuals who are
emotionally positive and prone to be warm, assertive, social,
and dominant. Conscientiousness portrays strong-willed and
self-disciplined individuals who are likely to be hard-
working, achievement-oriented, well-organized, and trust-
worthy. Agreeableness is illustrated in individuals with char-
acteristics like altruism, compliance, modesty, sympathy,
and tender-mindedness. Openness to Experience (or simply
Openness) reflects aesthetic individuals who long for inno-
vative ideas, fantasy, and sensations.
The five personality traits broadly describe how an indi-
vidual will feel, think, and behave in either real world or edu-
cational settings. However, at a lower level, many specific
characteristics—also called facets—can portray and concep-
tualize a trait in a narrower but clearer manner (Soto & John,
2009). Following the paradigm of the FFM, Costa, McCrae,
and Dye (1991) used six facets to describe each of the five
broad traits. For instance, the facets that underlie
Conscientiousness are Competence, Order, Dutifulness,
Achievement Striving, Self-discipline, and Deliberation.
Notably, although being aggregated into and correlated with
the same trait, these facets may differ from one another or
from the trait in their relations with academic achievement.
To illustrate, Corker, Oswald, and Donnellan (2012) exam-
ined each of the Conscientiousness facets by focusing on their
predictive potential for course performance, reporting that Self-
discipline was the only one that functioned as a significant pre-
dictor. In a similar manner, a study by Noftle and Robins (2007)
reported evidence to justify Achievement Striving as a stronger
predictor of grade point average (GPA) than the composite of
4 SAGE Open
Conscientiousness, whereas the other facet, Order, was not
related to GPA. Similarly, Vedel, Thomsen, and Larsen (2015)
compared the Big Five traits to their 30 facets, in terms of their
predictive power for GPA. Their regression results indicated
that facets within the same trait domain displayed higher pre-
dicting power than the trait itself; moreover, these facets were
varied in their relationship with GPA. In line with these find-
ings, after comprehensively reviewing the research that inves-
tigated personality–performance relations, O’Connor and
Paunonen (2007) reached their conclusion by emphasizing that
the Big Five facets predicted academic performance better than
their corresponding traits.
As evidenced, a single facet represents a more specific,
concrete, and straightforward personality profile than a trait,
so it may associate with learning outcomes more strongly and
closely. Furthermore, learners who bear a certain trait tend to
use or circumvent certain types of strategy. These different
strategy profiles explain why learners vary in their academic
achievement, task attainment, or course performance.
Because facets are stronger predictors than traits, their rela-
tionship with learning outcomes should have unequivocally
rendered the role of strategy use more thoroughly (e.g., acting
as mediators between personality facets and academic perfor-
mance). However, in the limited number of studies that have
delved into facet-achievement associations, the issue of strat-
egy use functioning as mediators has not been well addressed
or explored, not to mention the testing of facet–strategy–
performance relations in contexts where EFL college students
are requested to complete an essay-writing task. To clarify
this unsettled issue with solid empirical evidence, further
studies that focus on how facets, writing strategy use, and
writing performance of EFL college students would interact
with one another need to be carried out.
Rationale and the Hypothesized Model
Sykes (2015) observed that “the personality of a learner is a
major factor in determining the level of success in second
language learning” (p. 715). Furthermore, Komarraju, Karau,
Schmeck, and Avdic (2011) argued that “the paucity of cur-
rent research as well as the inconsistency in findings calls for
a closer examination of how individual differences in per-
sonality traits might be related to preferred strategies for
learning and how these might influence academic achieve-
ment” (p. 473). Nevertheless, Soto and John (2009) cau-
tioned that without exploring each facet individually,
“aggregating these related but distinguishable facet traits
into only five broad domains results in a loss of information”
(p. 84). In this respect, previous research, which merely
investigates traits, overlooks the impact of facets or lacks
direct evidence to justify the relationship between facets and
other variables, such as learning outcomes and strategy use.
In addition, to further explicate these personality–strategy–
achievement relations, Vedel et al. (2015) urged researchers
to shift their focus from broad traits to specific facets,
because the latter would be more strongly associated with
learners’ strategy use in educational settings when compared
with the former.
Moreover, the writing literature suggests that EFL college
students may be predisposed by their distinctive personality
traits to utilize or avoid writing strategies when approaching
their tasks. The use or circumvention of such strategies fur-
ther plays a decisive role in their written outcomes. For
instance, Ruffing, Hahn, Spinath, Brünken, and Karbach
(2015) adopted the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory to measure
traits of German EFL learners at a college level. Their evi-
dence pointed out that Conscientiousness and Openness
were positive predictors of Elaboration Strategy (e.g., strate-
gies of critical evaluation and cooperation with peers) and
Learning Discipline Strategy (e.g., strategies of organization,
rehearsal, and time/effort management). Another study by
Ayhan and Türkyılmaz (2015) employed the Revised
NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992) and Oxford’s (1990) SILL to survey Bosnian EFL col-
lege students. It showed that the relationships between
Metacognitive Strategy use and four personality traits,
namely, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness, were all positive. As mentioned above,
writing strategy use may profoundly correlate to writing per-
formance of EFL college students. From this perspective, it
can be hypothesized that strategy use is a function that sig-
nificantly mediates relations between personality and writing
performance. Yet, in an unfavorable manner, no study so far
has examined the personality facets of EFL college students
and their potential relationship to writing strategy use and
writing performance. What also remains unsolved is whether
writing strategies would act as functions that mediate the
facet–performance relations in EFL writing contexts. To test
the falsifiability of this hypothesis in the EFL writing domain,
it calls for an integration of a writing strategy component
into investigations on personality–performance relations.
Prompted by this proposition, the present study adopted
the FFM as a framework and employed the structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) technique to examine a hypothesized
model that specified predictive relationships among 10 per-
sonality facets (Soto & John, 2009), six types of writing
strategy (Peñuelas, 2012), and writing performance of EFL
college students. In the model, the 10 facets were treated as
exogenous factors (ξ) that predicted two endogenous factors
(η), namely, the writing performance and writing strategy
use of EFL college students. The types of writing strategy
were also presumed to predict writing performance and
mediate the facet–performance relations (see Figure 1 for
this simplified measurement model).
Method
Participants
The present study was conducted in a prestigious university
located in north Taiwan, where English has been taught and
learned as a foreign language. Prior to data collection,
He
Figure 1. The simplified measurement model.
approval had been obtained from a research ethics committee
that regulates and supervises studies involving human sub-
jects. At this university, 201 English-major students, aged
between 19 and 21, signed consent forms to indicate their
agreement of participation. Before the study was carried out,
all participants had accumulated 12 years of EFL learning
experiences from their schooling. In addition, participants
had taken two English writing courses and were also taking
another that focused on promoting their English essay-
writing skills when the current study was conducted. Taken
together, participants are competent EFL learners who have
cultivated adequate abilities to accomplish the essay-writing
task demanded by the current study.
5
The Writing Task
Participants were asked to complete an essay-writing task
that required them to defend their positions in either support-
ing or opposing capital punishment. This controversial, argu-
mentative prompt was chosen because the literature has
suggested that writers would need to apply a variety of writ-
ing strategies to complete essays whose topics are highly
contentious and debatable (Ericsson & Simon, 1993).
Participants were given 4 weeks to complete their writing
tasks and were also clearly informed that sharing ideas and
drafts with peers for comments and suggestions was allowed.
After turning in their essays, participants were surveyed
using two self-report scales.
Instruments
The Personality Facet Scale (PFS). To measure participants’
personality facets, the PFS adapted from the Big Five Inven-
tory (BFI) was administered. The BFI is a valid and reliable
scale that has forty-four 5-point items to measure five broad
personality traits (Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). To
extend its application to facet-level measurement, Soto and
John (2009) chose 35 items from the BFI to develop the PFS.
The PFS has 10 subscales to measure facets (i.e., two facets
for each trait), respectively, and each subscale uses the same
5-point Likert-type format (“1” indicates “Disagree
Strongly,” whereas “5” indicates “Agree Strongly”). The
facets and their corresponding traits (specified within the
brackets) are Assertiveness, Activity (Extraversion), Altru-
ism, Compliance (Agreeableness), Order, Self-discipline
(Conscientiousness), Anxiety, Depression (Neuroticism),
Aesthetics, and Ideas (Openness).
The PFS was chosen for three reasons. First, although the
NEO-PI-R has been considered as the most widely used
instrument to assess personality characteristics at both the
trait and facet levels, its 30 facets make it impractical for the
present study to perform the SEM technique. Second, based
on the factoring analysis results, Soto and John (2009) con-
cluded that “there was strong convergence between each BFI
facet scale and the corresponding NEO-PI-R facet” (p. 86).
In other words, the PFS is conceptually equivalent to the
NEO-PI-R in terms of the facets that the two scales aim to
measure. Third, as McCrae and Costa (2007) emphasized,
“brief scales can provide useful assessments of personality
constructs” (p. 116). Relative to lengthy scales, the brevity of
the PFS makes it less effortful but more efficient for partici-
pants to provide their responses. Together, the high conver-
gence validity and a considerable size of reliability supported
the use of the PFS in the current study.
Moreover, because the PFS is an imbalanced-keying scale
(i.e., the number of true-keyed items is unequal to that of false-
keyed ones), it will be discretionary to consider acquiescence
tendencies (i.e., some respondents are prone to agree more,
whereas others tend to disagree more without scrutinizing
6 SAGE Open
item content) before a factor analysis is conducted (Soto et al.,
2008). To simultaneously remove acquiescence variation and
keep the covariance matrix intact to carry out the SEM proce-
dure, this study adopted the method of Proportion of Maximum
Scaling (POMS; Little, 2013; Moeller, 2015), and its formula
is expressed as follows:
POMS = (every observed response − minimum response) ÷
(maximum response − minimum response)  Writing Performance
where minimum response =1 and maximum response = 5.
After POMS had been carried out, the original facet data
were transformed into metrics that ranged from 0 to 1.
Subsequently, the factor analysis and the SEM technique
were performed on the newly transformed POMS scores.
The Writing Strategy Scale (WSS). To measure participants’
strategy use, the WSS developed by Peñuelas (2012) was uti-
lized. The WSS has six subscales that amount to forty-seven
5-point anchored items (i.e., 1 indicates “Never True,”
whereas 5 indicates “Always True”), and each subscale mea-
sures one type of writing strategy. These types of strategy
were Memory Strategy, Cognitive Strategy, Compensation
Strategy, Metacognitive Strategy, Affective Strategy, and
Social Strategy. Sample items adopted from Peñuelas’ study
are “I relate my composition topic to my background knowl-
edge” (p. 109) (Memory Strategy); “I move paragraphs
around in an attempt to organize my writing in a more coher-
ent way” (p. 109) (Cognitive Strategy); “I use synonyms
when I can’t find the word I mean” (p. 110) (Compensation
Strategy); “I plan my composition in advance or while writ-
ing either mentally or in writing” (p. 110) (Metacognitive
Strategy); “I motivate myself to keep writing by saying
‘come on,’ ‘go on,’ ‘you can do it’” (p. 111) (Affective Strat-
egy); and “I give my writing to a friend or someone who is
good at writing so that I have an opinion about my writing”
(p. 112) (Social Strategy).
There are three reasons for selecting the WSS over the
other available strategy scales. First, the WSS was adapted
from Oxford’s (1990) SILL and Petrić and Czárl’s (2003)
questionnaire. Both the SILL and the questionnaire were
developed to measure the strategy use of second language
(L2) or foreign language (FL) learners. Originating from
such instruments that are suitable for L2/FL learners or writ-
ers, the WSS by nature can be an appropriate tool for EFL
college students. Second, the WSS measures writing strategy
use in a milieu where a writing task is demanded. This con-
text and task format would match those of the present study.
Third, Hayes and Flower (1980) pointed out that writing, at
least, constituted three phases—pre-writing, in-writing, and
post-writing phases. At each phase, writers may select dis-
tinctive strategies to approach their writing tasks. For
instance, on the pre-writing phase, the strategy of planning
thoughts/ideas ahead may be employed, whereas revising
strategies (e.g., revising drafts for grammatical concerns)
and memory strategies (e.g., choosing a word from a memo-
rized lexicon) may appear during the post-writing phase and/
or during the in-writing phase. Because the WSS covers a
wide array of writing strategies on all three phases, it can
capture a variety of strategies used by EFL participants
throughout their writing processes.
To measure writing performance, participants’ essays were
analytically rated by two raters using a six-category rubric
(He, Gou, Chien, Chen, & Chang, 2013). These categories
were Content, Organization, Style/Quality Expressions,
Language Use, Mechanics, and Length of Text, each
equally weighted at 10 points. Training sessions were pro-
vided prior to the actual conduct of scoring participants’
essays to ensure the raters would reach a consensus on how
to use this rubric to rate the essays. In the training, the two
raters first applied the rubric to individually mark sample
essays written by English-major sophomores other than
participants. The prompt for these sample essays differed
from the one used for the writing task. After finishing the
marking, the raters showed each other their scores on each
category. Discussions between the raters were initiated,
focusing on how to dispel inconsistencies. The training
sessions were not concluded until the two raters had felt
confident in, and comfortable with, using such a rubric to
consistently rate participants’ essays. Then, an aggregate
of the six category scores was computed and used as an
indicator of a participant’s writing performance. The value
of the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), .96,
revealed an elevated level of rating consistency between
the two raters’ scores.
Results
Validity and Reliability of the Scales
To estimate validity of the PFS and the WSS, the technique
of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed by run-
ning the Lisrel 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007). The results
showed that the λ values of the 35 personality facet items fell
between .95 and .75, and those of the 47 strategy items were
between .92 and .63. All values were larger than .50, and,
more importantly, they were significant at the level of .05
(p < .05). These observations signified that all 82 items had
acceptable convergent validity.
To assess the reliability of the two scales, two indices
were computed, namely, Cronbach’s alpha (by performing
SPSS 13.0) and Composite reliability (CR) (see Table 1).
The values for all the subscales were larger than .70, which
suggested that each subscale reached a prominent level of
internal consistency. Synthetically, the two scales were justi-
fied to be exceptionally reliable and valid.
He 7

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Facets, Writing Strategy, and Writing Performance (N = 201).

Maximum points M SD Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

Facets (in a 5-point metric)
Self-discipline (C) 25 15.55 4.46 .93 .93 .73
Order (C) 10 5.78 1.95 .90 .91 .83
Assertiveness (E) 25 16.00 5.28 .94 .95 .80
Activity (E) 10 5.68 2.02 .88 .91 .84
Altruism (A) 20 12.49 2.80 .90 .90 .70
Compliance (A) 15 8.43 2.23 .86 .87 .70
Ideas (O) 25 14.33 4.51 .94 .94 .78
Aesthetics (O) 15 9.02 3.38 .93 .94 .86
Anxiety (N) 20 11.34 4.38 .93 .96 .87
Depression (N) 10 5.62 1.97 .89 .89 .81
Types of writing strategy (in a 5-point metric)
Memory strategy 20 11.45 4.82 .93 .97 .91
Cognition strategy 65 36.67 15.60 .94 .99 .92
Compensation strategy 30 18.00 7.85 .92 .98 .91
Metacognitive strategy 70 38.95 15.76 .93 .99 .91
Affective strategy 30 15.50 7.15 .89 .98 .94
Social strategy 20 10.85 4.64 .89 .98 .94
Writing Performance (in a 60-point metric)
Rater 1 45.18 9.41
Rater 2 44.27 9.47

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; C = conscientiousness; E = extraversion; A = agreeableness; O = openness;
N = neuroticism.

The fit indices for the CFA model, along with their thresh-
olds shown within the brackets (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;
Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), were examined: df = 3,119,
χ2 = 4,842.49, p < .05 (>.05); root mean square error
approximation (RMSEA) = .05 (≦.05); standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) = .05 (<.08); normed fit
index (NFI) = .98 (>.90); non-normed fit index (NNFI) =
.95 (>.90); comparative fit index (CFI) = .98 (>.95);
normed χ2 = 1.55 (≦2); parsimonious normed fit index
(PNFI) = .89 (>.50). Except for χ2, all the indices pointed to
a good fit. However, because the χ2 statistic is sensitive to
sample sizes, a normed χ2 is recommended to replace it.
Because a normed χ2, whose value is no larger than 2, repre-
sents a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and such value for the
present study was 1.55, it suggested that the CFA model fit
the data and the latent variables be appropriately measured
by the items (i.e., the indicators).
Zero-Order Correlations Among Facets,
Writing Strategies, and Writing Performance
To estimate the correlations among the facets, writing strate-
gies, and writing performance, zero-order correlation coeffi-
cients were computed (SPSS 13.0). As shown in Table 2,
among all the correlations between the facets and scores of
the two raters, only those of Altruism and Compliance (i.e.,
the two facets of Agreeableness) were not significant.
Anxiety and Depression (i.e., the two facets of Neuroticism)
were negatively related to scores, whereas the remaining six
facets displayed positive relations. Moreover, all 10 facets
were either positively or negatively linked to at least one
type of writing strategy. Anxiety and Depression were the
only two facets negatively linked to the six types of strategy.
In addition, all strategy types were significantly and posi-
tively related to the scores of the two raters. As such, facets,
writing strategy use, and writing performance were found to
be closely interlinked to one another.
The Structural Model
Convergent validity and model fit
After the SEM technique had been applied (Lisrel 8.8), a
structural model was yielded (see Figure 2). To estimate con-
vergent validity of the model, the values of the Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) for the 16 constructs were com-
puted. As shown in Table 1, all AVE values passed the cut-off
threshold, .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and this indicated a
prominent level of convergent validity. To gauge the discrim-
inant validity of the SEM model, two criteria were adopted:
(a) None of 95% critical interval (CI) for any coefficient in
the Φ matrix of the independent variables should cross 1
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007), and (b) for each construct, the
root square of its AVE value should be larger than its all cor-
relations with other constructs (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson,
& Tatham, 2006). As illustrated in Table 3, 95% CIs for all
the 120 coefficients were lower than the cut-off criterion
8 SAGE Open

Table 2. Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients for Facets, Writing Strategy, and Writing Performance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1. CSD —
2. COR .26* —
3. EAS .37* 0 .07 —
4. EAC .23* –.03 .30* —
5. AAL .15* .04 .12 .03 —
6. ACO –.09 .06 –.06 .03 –.30* —
7. OID .15* –.02 –.30* .57* .02 .01 —
8. OAE .21* .07 .66* .17* .18* .04 .04 —
9. NAN –.24* .06 –.68* –.14* –.16* –.01 –.01 –.70* —
10. NDE –.41* –.11 –.41* –.21* .12 –.11 –.22* –.22* .28* —
11. MEM .23* –.01 .71* .15* .12 .04 –.01 .74* –.82* –.42* —
12. COG .56* .17* .65* .36* .00 .07 .39* .48* –.46* –.62* .52* —
13. COMP .53* .16* .62* .35* –.02 .00 .29* .43* –.45* –.66* .56* .78* —
14. META .60* .18* .63* .36* .01 .01 .31* .43* –.45* –.73* .52* .79* .81* —
15. AFF .57* .02 .70* .34* .15* –.14* .24* .49* –.60* –.58* .62* .73* .71* .75* —
16. SO .34* .03 .72* .44* .11 –.05 .30* .57* –.65* –.50* .70* .71* .66* .70* .79* —
17. Rater 1 .62* .25* .81* .38* .12 –.03 .34* .58* –.61* –.63* .67* .86* .83* .87* .82* .79* —
18. Rater 2 .64* .28* .79* .38* .11 .11 .02 .31* .55* –.59* –.63* .65* .85* .84* .87* .80* .74* .96* —

Note. CSD = self-discipline (conscientiousness); COR = order (conscientiousness); EAS = assertiveness (extraversion); EAC = activity (extraversion);
AAL = altruism (agreeableness); ACO = compliance (agreeableness); OID = idea (openness); OAE = aesthetics (openness); NAN = anxiety
(neuroticism); NDE = depression (neuroticism); MEM = memory strategy; COG = cognitive strategy; COMP = compensation strategy;
META = metacognitive strategy; AFF = affective strategy; SO = social strategy.
*
p < .05.

Figure 2. The structural model with significant paths.

Note. CSD = self-discipline (conscientiousness); COR = order (conscientiousness); EAS = assertiveness (extraversion); EAC = activity (extraversion);
AAL = altruism (agreeableness); ACO = compliance (agreeableness); OID = idea (openness); OAE = aesthetics (openness); NAN = anxiety
(neuroticism); NDE = depression (neuroticism); MEM = memory strategy; COG = cognitive strategy; COMP = compensation strategy; META =
metacognitive strategy; AFF = affective strategy; SO = social strategy; ACH = writing performance.

(e.g., the highest coefficient was .91 with a standard devia- root squares of AVE for all the constructs were also larger
tion of .02, and its 95% CI [.87, .95] still did not cross 1). The
 Table 3. Correlation Matrix (Φ Matrix) of Independent Variables.

CSD COR EAS EAC AAL ACO OID OAE NAN NDE MEM COG COMP META AFF SO

CSD .85
COR .26 (.07) .91
EAS .39 (.06) .08 (.08) .90
EAC .25 (.07) –.03 (.08) .32 (.07) .92
AAL .16 (.07) .03 (.08) .11 (.08) .04 (.08) .83
ACO –.09 (.08) .07 (.08) –.06 (.08) .02 (.08) –.34 (.07) .82
OID .16 (.07) –.03 (.08) .31 (.07) .62 (.05) .01 (.08) .02 (.08) .88
OAE .22 (.07) .07 (.08) .71 (.04) .17 (.08) .18 (.07) .05 (.08) .03 (.07) .93
NAN –.25 (.07) .07 (.08) –.74 (.04) –.16 (.08) –.17 (.07) –.02 (.08) –.01 (.08) –.77 (.03) .93
NDE –.44 (.06) –.10 (.08) –.44 (.06) –.22 (.08) .14 (.08) –.12 (.08) –.24 (.07) –.25 (.07) .30 (.07) .90
MEM .24 (.07) –.01 (.08) .76 (.03) .16 (.08) .13 (.08) .04 (.08) .00 (.08) .79 (.03) –.88 (.02) –.47 (.06) .95
COG .60 (.05) .17 (.07) .70 (.04) .41 (.07) .01 (.08) .08 (.08) .42 (.06) .48 (.06) –.50 (.06) –.68 (.04) .56 (.05) .96
COMP .61 (.05) .20 (.07) .71 (.04) .39 (.07) .01 (.08) .00 (.08) .33 (.07) .50 (.06) –.52 (.06) –.75 (.04) .63 (.05) .89 (.02) .95
META .64 (.05) .18 (.07) .67 (.04) .39 (.07) .01 (.08) .01 (.08) .33 (.07) .46 (.06) –.48 (.06) –.80 (.03) .59 (.05) .85 (.02) .91 (.02) .95
AFF .63 (.05) .00 (.08) .77 (.04) .42 (.07) .16 (.08) –.16 (.08) .28 (.07) .55 (.06) –.67 (.05) –.65 (.05) .69 (.04) .80 (.03) .83 (.03) .83 (.03) .97
SO .36 (.07) .02 (.08) .79 (.03) .50 (.06) .11 (.08) –.05 (.08) .32 (.07) .63 (.05) –.70 (.04) –.55 (.06) .77 (.04) .78 (.03) .76 (.04) .77 (.04) .89 (.02) .97

Note. The shadowed numbers are the root squares of AVE. The numbers within the brackets represent standard errors. CSD = self-discipline (conscientiousness); COR = order (conscientiousness);
EAS = assertiveness (extraversion); EAC = activity (extraversion); AAL = altruism (agreeableness); ACO = compliance (agreeableness); OID = idea (openness); OAE = aesthetics (openness); NAN
= anxiety (neuroticism); NDE = depression (neuroticism); MEM = memory strategy; COG = cognitive strategy; COMP = compensation strategy; META = metacognitive strategy; AFF = affective
strategy; SO = social strategy.

9
10
than all other correlations. All these results attested to the
high discriminant validity of this structural model.
To estimate the goodness of fit for the model, 14 indices
were computed (thresholds were provided within the brack-
ets): df = 3,291, χ2 = 5,236.72, p < .05 (p > .05);
non-centrality parameter (NCP) = 1,945.72 (within 90% CI
[1,752.44, 2,146.83] for NCP); SRMR = .05 (<.08);
RMSEA = .05 (≦.05); expected cross-validation index
(ECVI) = 28.97 (within 90% CI [28.1, 29.98] for ECVI);
NFI = .98 (>.90); NNFI = .98 (>.90); CFI = .98 (>.95);
incremental fit index (IFI) = .98 (>.95); relative fit index
(RFI) = .95 (≧.95); PNFI = .90 (>.50); parsimony good-
ness-of-fit index (PGFI) = .57 (>.50); Akaike information
criterion (AIC) = 5,794.12 (<saturated AIC = 7,140);
normed χ2 = 1.60 (≦2). Although the χ2 statistic did not sug-
gest a good fit, the normed χ2 and 12 indices all pointed out
that the structural model fit the data. Given that the proposed
model fits the data well, it seems unnecessary to conduct any
further modifications by trimming or adding any path
(MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). In other words,
this SEM model is a parsimonious one that clearly illumi-
nates the relationship among personality facets, writing strat-
egy use, and writing performance of EFL college students.
Significant vs. nonsignificant paths (γ and β)
in the model
The paths of this model showed that Self-discipline, Order,
Assertiveness, and Activity (i.e., the two facets of
Conscientiousness and Extraversion, respectively) posi-
tively predicted writing performance, whereas Anxiety and
Depression negatively predicted writing performance. By
contrast, Altruism and Compliance, along with Aesthetics
and Ideas (i.e., the facets of Openness), were not linked to
writing performance. Regarding the facet-strategy rela-
tions, except for Altruism, all the remaining nine facets sig-
nificantly predicted writing strategy use. Order, Aesthetics,
and Compliance were the three facets that predicted the
choices of only one type of strategy, namely, Compensation
Strategy, Memory Strategy, and Affective Strategy, respec-
tively. Assertiveness, Self-discipline, and Depression, on
the other hand, predicted the use of all strategy types.
Nevertheless, these three facets did not display a uniform
predictive relationship with strategy use. The predictive
relations between Assertiveness and strategy use were all
positive, but they were all negative for Depression. Self-
discipline negatively predicted the use of Memory Strategy
and Social Strategy, but a positive predictive association
was identified between this facet and the remaining four
strategy types, respectively. It is of note that no paired facet
of a trait exhibited an identical facet–strategy relationship.
For instance, unlike Depression, Anxiety merely predicted
the use of Memory Strategy, Affective Strategy, and Social
Strategy. Unlike Assertiveness, Activity predicted only the
adoption of four types of strategy (i.e., Compensation
SAGE Open
Strategy, Metacognitive Strategy, Affective Strategy, and
Social Strategy). To take another paired facet—Aesthetics
and Idea—as an example, the former positively predicted
the use of Memory Strategy only, but the latter negatively
predicted the utilization of the same type of strategy and
positively predicted the employment of Cognitive Strategy.
Furthermore, except for Social Strategy, the remaining five
types of writing strategy all positively predicted writing
performance. In other words, these types of strategy were
found to function as mediators that significantly mediated
relationships between the nine facets and writing perfor-
mance. This also indicated that the six facets that directly
and positively predicted writing performance also imposed
an indirect impact upon written outcomes by disposing
participants to use Memory Strategy, Cognitive Strategy,
Compensation Strategy, Metacognitive Strategy, and
Affective Strategy. In brief, the paired facets of EFL col-
lege participants within the same trait domains displayed an
identical relationship with writing performance, but
distinctive relationships with strategy use.
Discussion
The current study shows that Self-discipline, Order,
Assertiveness, and Activity predict the writing performance
of EFL college participants in a significant manner. Not only
does this finding indicate close relationships between these
distinctive personality facets and writing performance, but it
also implies how differently these EFL participants approach
their writing tasks and how well they are able to produce
their essays. To illustrate, in the PFS, Self-discipline is mea-
sured by items to assess: (a) How reliable, diligent, persis-
tent, and concentrated an individual will be, and (b) whether
an individual will plan ahead and follow through her or his
plans firmly (Soto & John, 2009). As such, participants high
on these items are predisposed to be industrious, deter-
mined, and pre-planning. They also blueprint their writing
tasks and then strictly follow such plans set in advance.
Moreover, these participants reliably and consistently pay
focal attention to their essay writing at hand. Also, in the
PFS, Order is measured by two items that gauge organized
and heedful characteristics. Therefore, high scores on the
items measuring this facet indicate that participants care-
fully regulate their writing efforts and systematize their
writing tasks. That the two facets of Conscientiousness
function as positive predictors of EFL college students’
writing performance is unsurprising. Bidjerano and Dai
(2007) synthesized previous personality–achievement
research and found “a consistent relationship between
Conscientiousness and academic achievement” (p. 71).
O’Connor and Paunonen (2007) conducted a meta-analysis
study and reported a sizable, positive correlation between
Conscientiousness and academic achievement. In line with
these previous findings, the present study further illumi-
nates that diligent and strong-minded EFL participants can
He
control, regulate, plan, and organize their writing efforts
well. Therefore, these participants are apt at producing high-
quality essays.
Similarly, participants obtaining high scores on the PFS
Activity items are described as being energetic and enthusi-
astic throughout their essay writing, whereas those high on
the Assertiveness subscale are eager to articulate and share
their ideas with peers instead of keeping quiet or being shy
and reserved. EFL participants bearing the two facets of
Extraversion are liable to engage actively and energetically
in their writing tasks. They also enjoy sharing their thoughts
and written drafts with classmates or teachers for feedback;
accordingly, they can output satisfactory essays.
It is worth noting that the EFL writing research does not
unanimously find positive evidence to support the beneficial
role Extraversion assumes in improving writing perfor-
mance. For instance, Liyanage and Bartlett (2013) empha-
sized that extraverts were those who actively, assertively, and
enthusiastically engaged in writing tasks, but they might also
be described as having “relatively inefficient functional pro-
cessing and memory when compared to those of introverts”
(p. 599). In other words, extraverts may be too gregarious or
too unreserved to stay focused on their writing tasks.
However, the current study shows that the more assertive and
enthusiastic EFL participants are, the better their written
essays will be. This tendency may be explained by the nega-
tive correlations between the facets of Extraversion and
Neuroticism (i.e., Anxiety and Depression). To illustrate,
Eysenck (1991) contended that extraverts easily failed to
process efficiently upcoming information or to retrieve
knowledge from memory when they were under impact of
unstable emotions (i.e., high on Neuroticism). In the present
study, the negative correlation coefficients observed between
the facets of Neuroticism and those of Extraversion suggest
that extraverted EFL participants are emotionally stable.
Given that extraverted EFL participants actively engage in
tasks and constantly share drafts without being disturbed by
emotional instability, they can compose satisfactory writing.
That Anxiety and Depression negatively predict writing
performance seems to be a foreseen finding. Liu (2012)
examined the relationship between EFL learning achieve-
ment and personality types, identifying a negative associa-
tion between Neuroticism and performance. Consistently,
Bidjerano and Dai (2007) argued that a negative Neuroticism–
achievement correlation suggested that “elevated emotional
instability places individuals at the risk of diminished aca-
demic achievement” (p. 71). Zhang (2003) also illustrated
that neurotic people “tend to experience such negative feel-
ings as emotional instability, embarrassment, guilt, pessi-
mism, and low self-esteem” (p. 1432). Consistent with these
findings, the present study suggests that depressed and anx-
ious EFL participants are moody and unable to handle stress
or remain calm. Disrupted by emotional instability and nega-
tive affect, they may not stay focused on their writing tasks
11
or keep channeling their efforts to code their ideas in English
print. Accordingly, mediocre quality essays are produced.
The current study also reveals that Altruism, Compliance,
Idea, and Aesthetics, the facets of Agreeableness and
Openness, do not directly predict the writing performance of
EFL college participants. In previous studies, Agreeableness
and Openness tend to be highly related to academic achieve-
ment (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). For instance,
Komarraju et al. (2011) contended that both Agreeableness
and Openness positively predicted overall academic perfor-
mance. Sorić, Penezić, and Burić (2017) also found that
Agreeableness was positively related to academic achieve-
ment. Likewise, Bidjerano and Dai (2007) observed that
Openness was an independent factor accounting for a great
amount of variance for students’ GPA. However, the present
study does not lend credence to these studies. There are two
plausible explanations for the discrepancy between the
facet–performance relationship observed in the current study
and the trait–performance relationship reported in previous
research. First, in previous trait studies that employed the
FFM as the framework and scales like the BFI or NEO-PI-R,
Agreeableness and Openness were treated as two broad com-
posites that consisted of six facets each. The present study
examines only two of them. The difference in the magnitude
for the combined effects of the trait (i.e., six facets), as
opposed to the independent impact of a single facet, may
account for why Agreeableness and Openness predict aca-
demic achievement, but that Altruism, Compliance, Idea,
and Aesthetics do not. Second, participants scoring highly on
the Altruism subscale are helpful, unselfish, warm, consider-
ate, and kind, whereas high scores on Compliance items sig-
nify participants as being forgiving, uncritical, and
uncontentious. During writing, altruistic participants may be
willing to aid peers, but such agreeable gestures may be ben-
eficial for help-receivers but not for help-providers.
Compliant participants may not find fault or quarrel with
others; nevertheless, such agreeable gestures seem unrelated
to how essays would or should be written. These explana-
tions can also be cross-validated by the nonsignificant zero-
order correlation coefficients for Altruism–performance and
Compliance–performance relations. Taken together, as these
facet–performance relationships suggest, participants may
be provoked by their distinctive facets to approach essay
writing in unique manners, which further assumes a role in
how well their essays may be written.
In addition, all the writing strategy types, except for
Social Strategy, positively predict writing performance. This
finding indicates that EFL participants utilize Memory
Strategy to relate writing prompts to their background knowl-
edge. They also use Cognitive Strategy to create, organize,
review, and revise linguistic forms, contents, and structures.
Once writing difficulties present themselves, these partici-
pants will utilize Compensation Strategy to take advantage
of available resources, such as dictionaries, to solve prob-
lems. Metacognitive Strategy will also be applied to plan and
12
organize thoughts and ideas, followed by monitoring, evalu-
ating, and reviewing the fit between ideas and print. By
employing Affective Strategy to encourage and reward
themselves, they can stay motivated during writing tasks and
maintain optimism for written outcomes. Due to the habitual
use of these strategies, EFL participants can output high-
quality writing.
These positive strategy-performance links are corrobo-
rated by prior research. Teng and Zhang (2018) reported
positive relationships between writing performance of EFL
college students and their use of metacognitive strategies and
cognitive strategies, whereas social strategy use was found
uncorrelated to writing performance. Graham and Perin
(2007) argued that L2 learners became able to compose qual-
ity essays after learning and applying strategies of planning,
editing, and monitoring to their writing. A study by He et al.
(2011) showed that compensation strategies were positively
related to written outcomes of EFL college students in
Taiwan. Chien (2012) also highlighted that high-achieving
Taiwanese EFL college students differed from their low-
achieving counterparts in their recurrent use of metacogni-
tive strategies (e.g., mentally devising a clear scheme ahead
and evaluating the match between intended meanings and
print) and cognitive strategies (e.g., formulating linguistic
expressions, reviewing previously written sections, and
revising/editing contents of drafts). Olivares-Cuhat (2002)
also found that the use of memory strategies and affective
strategies, such as “using relaxation techniques, making pos-
itive statements, taking risks wisely” (p. 562), was highly
related to writing performance. As evidenced by the current
study and prior research, the more often EFL college stu-
dents employ memory strategies, cognitive strategies, meta-
cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, and affective
strategies to complete their writing tasks, the better their
essays will be.
Among the five strategy types that predict writing perfor-
mance, Compensation Strategy exhibits the highest β value
(= .37), indicating its strongest predictive power for written
outcomes. What this observation suggests is twofold: (a) The
use of compensation strategies may rectify participants’ lin-
guistic deficits and improve their writing, and (b) the use of
compensation strategies demonstrates EFL participants’
strong willingness to rise to writing difficulties and chal-
lenges. For instance, He et al. (2011) found that EFL college
students set their writing goals up as mastering skills and out-
performing peers. To achieve such goals, they are strongly
motivated to produce high-quality essays. Once a difficulty
that results from knowledge gaps occurs, they actively con-
front the difficulty and habitually apply compensation strate-
gies, such as utilizing a dictionary for proper word choices or
grammatical usage, to surmount it. In other words, using
compensation strategies to clear away all writing difficulties
increases writing quality and the chance to fulfill established
goals. In like manner, EFL participants frequently apply the
Compensation Strategy type to find the right synonyms, word
SAGE Open
choices, or expressions. Upon feeling stuck, they pause or re-
read their writing, so they can reflect upon what has been
written and clarify their thoughts to maintain a writing flow.
They also use sources to estimate, modify, or generate inno-
vative ideas for their writing tasks. Put differently, employ-
ment of these effective compensation strategies benefits EFL
participants in promoting their writing quality once difficul-
ties are smoothed out, original ideas are formulated and
adjusted, and new thoughts are fabricated.
Moreover, the relationships between writing strategy use
and each of the two facets within the same trait domain are
not uniform. For instance, Assertiveness (one facet of
Extraversion) predicts the use of all types of strategy, whereas
its counterpart, Activity, predicts the adoption of only four
strategies (i.e., except for Memory Strategy and Cognitive
Strategy). This suggests that assertive participants, who are
bold in making statements and pursuing conspicuous task
performance, frequently apply cognitive strategies to com-
pose, review, summarize, elaborate, or organize their essays.
In addition, these assertive college students are also charac-
terized to articulate and convey abstract thoughts in a clear
and direct manner, so they often estimate the fit between
their writing content and intended ideas. Metacognitive strat-
egies are also applied to plan and then estimate and monitor
what has been written, along with the use of compensation
strategies (e.g., consulting dictionary) to expel any difficulty
in expressing thoughts and usage. In addition, to relate their
writing ideas to schemata or previous experiences, these
assertive participants choose to utilize memory strategies.
What is more, being communication-oriented, they employ
affective strategies to intensify their own confidence in and
motivation for writing, going on to apply social strategies to
share their writing or seek help. On the other hand, partici-
pants high on Activity are energetic and enthusiastic; they
are also fond of involving social interactions. This facet,
therefore, disposes participants to engage actively in their
writing tasks and choose Compensation Strategy,
Metacognitive Strategy, and Affective Strategy to improve
their essays, and Social Strategy to share and exchange drafts
for feedback and comments.
Nevertheless, unlike Assertiveness, Activity does not pre-
dict the use of Memory Strategy and Cognitive Strategy. As
revealed from the four significant γ values that represent
magnitudes of Activity-Strategy relations, the one between
this facet and Social Strategy is highest (i.e., .34 vs. .21, .14,
and .12). This observation implies that social activities and
interpersonal communications deeply occupy participants
who bear high Activity, so these participants apply Social
Strategy considerably frequently. In turn, they are not dis-
posed by this facet to apply cognitive strategies to compose,
estimate, read, restructure, or polish their essays, nor are they
predisposed to choose memory strategies to associate drafts
with previous knowledge.
The significance of delving into paired facets can also be
realized from how differently Anxiety and
He
Depression predict writing strategy use. To illustrate,
Anxiety negatively predicts the use of Memory Strategy,
Social Strategy, and Affective Strategy. This observation
suggests the more anxious EFL participants are, the more
likely they are to shun social interactions, elude retrieval of
information from memory, and cease the cultivation of an
interest in writing tasks. These associations indicate that
anxious participants are nervous, uneasy, unfocused, and
worried learners. Disturbed by such negative affect, they
may lose the incentive to remain motivated toward writing
and to retrieve information from their memory. Accordingly,
they reduce the use of Affective Strategy and Memory
Strategy. These anxious participants may also feel discom-
fort when contacting others in social activities. Consequently,
they decrease their utilization of Social Strategy. However,
unlike Anxiety, Depression negatively predicts all six types
of writing strategy, which suggests that the more depressed
participants are, the less likely they are to use any type of
writing strategy. Depressed participants are sad, angry, inac-
tive, unfocused, and dejected. They seem susceptible to
such mood disorders, becoming unwilling to dedicate efforts
toward their writing tasks. In light of these findings,
Depression exerts a more momentous, although negative,
impact upon participants’ writing strategy use than Anxiety.
Only when individual facets in the same trait domain are
explored can such dissimilarity in their relationship with
strategy use be explicitly pinpointed.
Moreover, Self-discipline and Order are another pair of
facets that exhibit a distinctive relationship with strategy use.
Self-disciplined participants are concentrated, diligent, and
persistent. They frequently apply Cognitive Strategy,
Metacognitive Strategy, Compensation Strategy, and
Affective Strategy to promote both their writing quality and
spirit. Meanwhile, these participants also regulate their
efforts by decreasing the adoption of Social Strategy. Because
they frequently apply compensation strategies to utilize a
dictionary for unfamiliar words or usage and to use sources
to incite innovative ideas, they reduce the use of Memory
Strategy (e.g., relating unfamiliar words with schemata and
associating writing prompts with previous experiences). By
contrast, Order predisposes participants to adopt merely one
type of strategy, namely, Compensation Strategy. This rela-
tionship suggests that EFL participants high on Order are
careful writers who are precautious about quality of their
written products. Once difficulties that may deteriorate writ-
ing performance occur, compensation strategies are fre-
quently adopted by these EFL participants to resolve the
difficulties and safeguard writing quality. Moreover, Order
also disposes EFL participants to be organized. When diffi-
culties take place and interrupt writing processes, these par-
ticipants often employ Compensation Strategy to make short
pauses for reflecting on drafts. Accordingly, they can re-
organize their ideas, thoughts, or contents for later writing.
As the nonuniform relationships suggest, one of the paired
facets may assume a more momentous role in increasing or
13
decreasing the use of additional types of writing strategy
than the other.
In the literature, Openness has been found to be associ-
ated with writing performance. For instance, the Council of
Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of
Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project (2011),
all recognize that college students’ personality traits, such as
curiosity and openness, are crucial in determining the quality
of their writing. Also, Maslej, Rain, Fong, Oatley, and Mar
(2014) identified an association between personality and
writing, concluding that “creative writers scored higher on
trait openness” (p. 192). Although the present study shows
that the facets of Openness, Ideas and Aesthetics, do not
directly predict how well EFL participants compose essays,
they instead exhibit to exert an indirect impact upon written
outcomes by predisposing these participants to apply
Memory Strategy or Cognitive Strategy to write essays. To
illustrate, high scores on the Idea subscale indicate that par-
ticipants are curious, reflective, and deep thinkers who enjoy
playing with ideas, while participants scoring highly on the
Aesthetics items will hold great esteem of their artistic expe-
riences. Participants who are full of innovative ideas and
insights frequently employ Cognitive Strategy to formulate,
think through, assess, and rearrange their drafts. Participants
who have obtained a plethora of artistic experiences con-
stantly utilize Memory Strategy to associate writing contents
with their artistic experiences that have been amply accumu-
lated. The use of such strategies then plays a role in promot-
ing EFL participants’ essay quality. In other words, the more
often aesthetic participants use Memory Strategy, the greater
the writing performance they reveal. The more frequently
Idea-predisposed participants utilize Cognitive Strategy, the
better essays they produce. As evident in these relations,
although facets like Idea and Aesthetics do not directly pre-
dict writing performance, they still provoke EFL participants
to use those types of strategy that are beneficial for facilitat-
ing writing quality.
Furthermore, besides Altruism, all nine facets, no matter
they can directly predict writing performance or not, unani-
mously impose an indirect impact upon writing performance
by disposing EFL participants to use the five types of writing
strategy, other than Social Strategy. The significance of this
finding is twofold. First, it reveals that the nine facets are
precursors of writing strategy use. In other words, these fac-
ets are antecedents of writing strategy use for EFL partici-
pants. Second, in previous personality research that focuses
on the predictive relations between personality traits and aca-
demic achievement, the component of strategy tends to be
disregarded, so are its mediating relations with facets and
learning outcomes. The current study evidences that the five
types of writing strategy are functions that mediate the rela-
tionships between the nine facets and the writing perfor-
mance of EFL college students. Therefore, adding and
treating strategy use as a mediator will help elaborate facet–
performance relations in educational settings.
14
Conclusion
The present study may be the first attempt to illuminate the
facet–strategy–performance associations in an EFL writing
context. As Vedel et al. (2015) emphasized, “facets may vary
in their association with variables such as academic perfor-
mance” (p. 70). In line with this finding, the present study
further shows that the facets exhibit distinctive relations,
both with writing performance and with writing strategy use.
This suggests that learners’ facets and their strategy use
should be considered to illuminate the perplexing personal-
ity–achievement relationship.
Although the present study is of principal significance in
promoting the current understanding of the facet–strategy–
performance associations in the EFL writing context, there
are limitations that should be noted before the findings can
be appropriately generalized. First, the current study exam-
ines only 10 facets within the framework of the FFM.
Although the researcher is aware that there are 30 facets in
Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO-PI-R, using the SEM tech-
nique to test a model that involves so many variables (i.e.,
facets) is highly impractical (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007).
However, future research that includes more than 10 facets is
still encouraged if a structural model with acceptable fit indi-
ces can be successfully yielded. Second, participants in the
current study are EFL college students pursing English as
their major. Because the relationship between personality
characteristics and academic achievement may be varied for
college students with different majors (Vedel et al., 2015),
directly applying the findings to other college students with
majors other than English should be proceeded with great
discretion. Alternatively, further research that focuses on col-
lege students of non-English majors is encouraged.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of
Taiwan (MOST-107-2410-H-152-004-MY2; NSC-102-2410-H-
152-006; NSC-101-2410-H-152-015).
ORCID iD
Tung-hsien He https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2627-3440
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Ayhan, Ü., & Türkyılmaz, U. (2015). The use of meta-cognitive
strategies and personality traits among Bosnian university stu-
dents. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 5, 40-60.
SAGE Open
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16, 74-94.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written
composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the
big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strat-
egies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 69-81.
Chien, S. C. (2012). Students’ use of writing strategies and their
English writing achievements in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal
of Education, 32, 93-112.
Corker, K. S., Oswald, F. L., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012).
Conscientiousness in the classroom: A process explanation.
Journal of Personality, 80, 995-1028.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R: Pro-
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales
for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A revision of
the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 887-898.
The Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National
Council of Teachers of English, & the National Writing
Project. (2011). Framework for success in postsecondary writ-
ing. National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from
http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsec
ondary-writing.pdf
De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruc-
tion on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency
levels. System, 53, 47-59.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language learn-
ing styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The
Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal
reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16: 5 or 3?
Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 773-790.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations
in the language of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N.
Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1.
pp. 203-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing
instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 445-476.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson University Press.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization
of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Sternberg (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
He, T. H. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the
composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 61, 407-431.
He, T. H., Chang, S. M., & Chen, S. H. E. (2011). Multiple goals,
writing strategies, and written outcomes for college students
He
learning English as a second language. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 112, 401-416.
He, T. H., Gou, W. J., Chien, Y. C., Chen, I. S. J., & Chang, S. M.
(2013). Multi-faceted Rasch measurement and bias patterns in
EFL writing performance assessment. Psychological Reports,
112, 469-485.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8 user’s guide.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The
Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achieve-
ment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 472-477.
Leaver, B. L., Ehrman, M. E., & Shekhtman, B. (2005). Achieving
success in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Liu, M. (2012). Predicting effects of personality traits, self-esteem,
language class risk-taking and sociability on Chinese univer-
sity EFL learners’ performance in English. Journal of Second
Language Teaching and Research, 1, 30-57.
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. (2013). Personality types and languages
learning strategies: Chameleons changing colours. System, 41,
598-608.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996).
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covari-
ance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
Maslej, M. M., Rain, M., Fong, K., Oatley, K., & Mar, R. A. (2014).
The hierarchical personality structure of aspiring creative writ-
ers. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 192-202.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint
analyses of the NEO-PI and other instruments. In D. M. Buss
& N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology:Recent trends and
emerging directions (pp. 237-245). New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. (1991). The five-factor model and its assessment in
clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 399-414.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision
of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 587-596.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2007). Brief versions of the
NEO-PI-3. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 116-128.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-
Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60,
175-215.
Moeller, J. (2015). A word on standardization in longitudinal stud-
ies: Don’t. Frontier in Psychology, 6, 1389.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of aca-
demic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and SAT scores.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 116-130.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five person-
ality predictors of post-secondary academic performance.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971-990.
15
Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement
in the Spanish writing classroom: A case study. Foreign
Language Annals, 35, 561-570.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every
teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Peñuelas, A. B. C. (2012). The writing strategies of American uni-
versity students: Focusing on memory, compensation, social
and affective strategies. ELIA, 12, 77-113.
Petrić, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy ques-
tionnaire. System, 31, 187-215.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A
classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
Raoofi, S., & Yahya, M. (2017). Relationships among motivation
(self-efficacy and task value), strategy use and performance in
L2 writing. Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language
Studies, 35, 299-310.
Ruffing, S., Hahn, E., Spinath, F. M., Brünken, R., & Karbach, J.
(2015). Predicting students’ learning strategies: The contribu-
tion of chronotype over personality. Personality and Individual
Differences, 85, 199-204.
Sharp, A. (2008). Personality and second language learning. Asian
Social Science, 4, 17-25.
Shawer, S. F. (2016). Four language skills performance, academic
achievement, and learning strategy use in preservice teacher
training programs. TESOL Journal, 7, 262-303.
Sorić, I., Penezić, Z., & Burić, I. (2017). The Big Five personality
traits, goal orientations, and academic achievement. Learning
and Individual Differences, 54, 126-134.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five
Inventory: Convergence with NEO-PI-R facets, self-peer
agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 84-90.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The
developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports:
Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentia-
tion from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 718-737.
Sykes, A. H. (2015). The good language learner revisited: A
case study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6,
713-720.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regu-
lation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model
of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/
foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 213-240.
Vedel, A., Thomsen, D. K., & Larsen, L. (2015). Personality, aca-
demic majors, and performance: Revealing complex patterns.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 69-76.
Zhang, L. F. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approaches?
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1431-1446.
Author Biography
Tung-hsien He is a full professor at National Taipei University of
Education, Taiwan. His research focuses on language assessment,
strategy use, and achievement goals in EFL contexts.