See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358476173

The effect of extroversion/introversion on English proficiency

Chapter · February 2022

DOI: 10.1201/9781003265061-5

CITATIONS READS

2 1,426

1 author:

Kusumarasdyati ..

50 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kusumarasdyati .. on 21 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTS AND
HUMANITIES (IJCAH 2021), SURABAYA, INDONESIA, 2 OCTOBER 2021

Innovation on Education and

Social Sciences

Edited by

Irena Maureen, Elly Imah, Siti Savira, Syafi’ul Anam,

Masilva Mael & Lina Hartanti
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, the Editors; individual chapters, the contributors
Typeset in Times New Roman by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

The right of the Editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors
for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available
under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information
herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or
persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
e-mail: enquiries@taylorandfrancis.com
www.routledge.com – www.taylorandfrancis.com
ISBN: 978-1-032-20752-0 (Hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-20753-7 (Pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-26506-1 (eBook)
DOI: 10.1201/9781003265061
 Innovation on Education and Social Sciences – Maureen et al (Eds)
© 2022 copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-20752-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Table of contents

Foreword ix
Organization xi
Acknowledgement xiii

Curriculum, instruction, and pedagogy

Learning concrete structures using IT-based interactive media 3
Suprapto, T.W. Wibowo & L. Nurlaela
Development of hybrid project-based learning in State University of Surabaya 11
Mustaji, S. Masitoh & H.D. Pradana
Profile of changes in adaptive physical education learning during the
Covid-19 pandemic 19
E. Burhaein, B. Tarigan, D. Budiana, Y. Hendrayana & D.T.P. Phytanza
The effectiveness of online lectures on art students 29
D.N. Mukti, D. Djatiprambudi & W.H.N. Ruci
The effect of extroversion/introversion on English proficiency 37
K. Kusumarasdyati
The use of Xreading books & audios for extensive reading program 42
W.E. Savitri & A. Munir
Variative etude as skill-forming on the Youth Level Viola major
course at music study program 49
H.Y. Karyawanto, M. Sarjoko & V.E. Dewi
Folklore for developing plurilingual and pluricultural competence (PCC) in
foreign language classroom 56
P.V. Asteria, A. Yuniatin & E.K. Dewi

Trends and issues in education

Building evidence-informed innovation. The case of 21st-century skills 67
D.D. Curtis
The impact of principal transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational change in elementary schools 74
Windasari, E. Roesminingsih & S. Trihantoyo
A mismatch between high-status profession and altruistic motives, and
why it matters for the teaching profession 81
S.I. Savira, Mustaji, D. Nurwidawati & A. Ayub
Teacher professional development in Indonesia: A comparative study with
global practices 89
S.A. Tias & W. Tongjean

v
 Innovation on Education and Social Sciences – Maureen et al (Eds)
© 2022 copyright the Author(s), ISBN 978-1-032-20752-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

The effect of extroversion/introversion on English proficiency

K. Kusumarasdyati
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: The role of the learners’ personality in learning English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) has drawn the interest of researchers and educators. The present ex-post-facto study added
empirical evidence of this issue by investigating whether extroversion and introversion affected
the learners’ English proficiency. Seventy-five undergraduates majoring in English participated in
this study and completed a questionnaire to find out whether they were extroverts, introverts, or
ambiverts. They also took the Test of English Proficiency (TEP) to measure their language profi-
ciency. The results indicated the English proficiency of the extrovert learners was not significantly
different from that of the introvert or ambivert learners. On the basis of the findings, implications
for the teaching of EFL and suggestions for further studies were presented.

1 INTRODUCTION

The classification of personality into extravert (or extrovert) and introvert was proposed at the
beginning of the 20th century by Jung (1971), who observed how individuals differed with respect
to the source and direction of expressing their energy. Whereas extroverts turn them outward,
introverts tend to do the same inward. Extroverts regain energy by socializing and engaging in
conversations with others. They think talking to people is more stimulating, hence the impression
that they speak a lot. In contrast, introverts find conversing with a group of individuals draining
their energy. They can refuel by withdrawing from others and reflecting in solitude.
These differences prompted some research that associate extroversion/introversion and language
learning. For instance, Nussbaum (2002) found that extroverts and introverts approached small
group discussion differently. The extroverted learners tended to express contradictions and coun-
terexamples with their extroverted peers, while the introverted learners collaborated with the other
introverted members of the group to find solutions. Another study demonstrated that the extroverts
tended to begin the discussion, introduce new topics and restate ideas in language classrooms,
whereas the introverts generally asked questions (Abali, 2006).
The contrast between these two personality types was not confined to the learners’ behaviors
only, but it also occurred in the use of language learning strategies (Chen & Hung, 2012). The
introverted language learners used cognitive and metacognitive strategies more than the extro-
verted learners (Kayaoğlu, 2013), except for metacognitive strategies that promote opportunities
for communication. Similarly, Wakamoto (2000) found a significant correlation between extro-
version and functional practice strategies and social-affective strategies, but introversion was not
associated with any specific strategies.
Although the above studies provided empirical evidence of the role that extroversion and intro-
version played in language learning, Brown (2000) cautioned against stereotyping the extroverts
as better language learners because they seemed to speak more than their introverted peers in the
classroom. Contrary to popular belief, learners were not categorized as extroverts simply because
they expressed their ideas orally more frequently than others, and the introverted learners were
not always the quiet, passive ones in class discussions either. Both the extroverts and the intro-
verts might talk a lot during the lesson, and they differed in how they got the sense of wholeness:

DOI 10.1201/9781003265061-5 37
the former obtained it from others, while the latter needed to distance themselves from others to
contemplate.
Despite the dissimilar traits, research indicated that the English proficiency of the extroverts was
not significantly different from that of the introverts (Busch, 1982). The present study replicated
the previous work to obtain more empirical evidence about this issue but one more personality type
was added namely ambiversion. Coined by Edmund Smith Conklin a few years after Jung revealed
extroversion and introversion, the term ambiversion refers to the characteristics of extroversion and
introversion (Davidson, 2017). An ambiverted person is mainly extroverted in a particular condition
and mainly introverted in another to adapt to the surrounding, and this is considered more realistic
as no person is purely extroverted or introverted in real life.
This study aimed to find out whether the learners’ extroversion, introversion and ambiversion
significantly affected their English proficiency. The procedures of conducting this study will be
taken up in the next section. Then the findings will be reported, followed by the implications from
these findings.

2 METHODS

This research was conducted by using ex-post facto study as the research design because the
independent variable, i.e. the learners’ extroversion and introversion, occurred naturally and could
not be manipulated (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2005; Gall,
Gall, & Borg, 2003). The population of the study consisted of 90 third-year students at the English
Department of a state university in the outskirts of Surabaya, Indonesia. All of them were approached
to participate in this study, but only 75 undergraduates responded so they became the sample.
Two instruments were administered in this study: a questionnaire and a test. The questionnaire was
employed to classify the participants into introverts, extroverts or ambiverts. It was devised by Cain
(2011), consisting of twenty statements that the participants had to identify as true or false. Some
examples of the statements were “I prefer one-on-one conversations to group activities” and “I enjoy
solitude.” If the answer to more than 10 items was “true,” the participants tended to be introverts.
On the other hand, they were categorized as extroverts if they answered “false” in more than ten
items. Equal number of “true” and “false” (that is, 10 of each) meant that the participants could
be classified as ambiverts. The second instrument was the Test of English Proficiency (henceforth,
TEP), a standardized test which was developed by the Language Center of the university. As the
name suggests, the test estimated the participants’ English proficiency with respect to listening
comprehension, reading comprehension and sentence structures.
To collect data from the participants, the researchers asked them to answer the questionnaire,
resulting in information about their personality—extrovert, introvert or ambivert. They were
assigned into three groups on the basis of their personality type. Afterwards, they submitted the
score of TEP. Because they had to take TEP every semester, each participant had at least four scores.
They disclosed only the latest score for this study. Data collection resulted in three sets of TEP scores
from the three groups. These data were analyzed by means of ANOVA to test the difference between
these groups with respect to their English proficiency. One way ANOVA was utilized because there
was only one independent variable, namely, the participants’ extroversion/introversion.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Out of 75 participants in this study, the majority could be classified as introverts (N = 52), some
of them belonged to the category of extroverts (N = 11) and the rest were ambiverts (N = 6). The
proportion of the participants is shown in Figure 1.

38
Figure 1. The percentage of introverted, extroverted and ambiverted undergraduates.

The results of the computation indicated that there was no significant difference in English
proficiency between the extroverts, the introverts and the ambiverts. Table 1 reports the results of
the computation.

Table 1. The results of ANOVA computation.

Groups N X F P-value Fcrit

Extroverts 11 478.36
Introverts 52 465.08 1.26 0.29 3.14
Ambiverts 6 454

The means of TEP scores obtained from these three groups were only slightly different, sug-
gesting that their English proficiency tended to be similar. The extroverted undergraduates had the
highest mean (X extro = 478.36), the introverted ones had a slightly lower mean (X intro = 465.08)
and the ambiverts generally scored the lowest (X ambi = 454). Although these groups appeared to
be different, statistical tests using one-way ANOVA showed the difference in English proficiency
between the extroverts, the introverts and the ambiverts was not significant (F = 1.26, P = 0.29).
This was consistent with the finding of the previous studies which demonstrated the extroverted
learners did not have better English proficiency than the introverted ones (Busch, 1982; Chen,
Jiang, & Mu, 2015). Regardless of the learners’ place in a continuum of extroversion and introver-
sion, they had an equal chance to be successful in learning a foreign language. Apparently, their
personality types played an essential role in the process of language learning, but they did not affect
the outcome. It explained why the extroverted learners expressed their ideas in a different manner
from their introverted peers in classroom interactions (Abali, 2006; Nussbaum, 2002). The former
also understandably put more emphasis on the use of social strategies to make language learning
more effective for them, whereas the latter tended to make good use of cognitive and metacogni-
tive strategies (Kayaoğlu, 2013; Liyanage & Bartlett, 2013; ;xford, 2003; Oxford, Hollaway, &
Horton-Murillo., 1992; Wakamoto, 2000). While attempting to improve their English proficiency,
the introverts needed to reflect and reason to perform their best so they utilized language learning
strategies that facilitated reflection and reasoning. Consequently, what they articulated was mostly
the results of these two cognitive behaviors. The extroverts, on the other hand, needed commu-
nication with others in thought processes, hence employing mostly social strategies in language
learning. The ambiverts had the flexibility to adapt to any learning situations so they might reflect
in solitude or engage in exchange with peers to optimize learning. The extroverts, the introverts
and the ambiverts who selected the language learning strategies and activities that matched their
type of personality well achieved the most and succeeded in improving their language proficiency.

39
 This finding had an important implication in the teaching of English as a foreign language.
English teachers should understand the personality type of the learners and assist them to orches-
trate the appropriate learning strategies. Dedicating some class time for strategy instruction and
raising the learners’ awareness of extroversion, introversion and ambiversion is recommended
whenever feasible. Additionally, teachers need to expose the learners to various learning activities
to accommodate different personality types and respect these differences. As suggested by Brown
(2000) earlier in this paper, the teachers should avoid considering the extroverted learners as supe-
rior or more desirable in the classroom simply because these learners seem to speak more than
their peers. As a matter of fact, the teachers may lead the way in abolishing such stereotypes and
embrace learners regardless of their personality types because—as this study has found—all of
them have equal potential to succeed in learning English as a foreign language.

4 CONCLUSION

The study was an attempt to find out whether there was a significant difference in English pro-
ficiency between the extroverts, the introverts and the ambiverts. The results showed that such a
difference did not exist among the undergraduates. It means the learners’ personality types did not
affect the outcome of learning, although they might determine the strategies and activities that the
learners used in the learning process. Based on this finding, some implications for the teaching of
English were suggested.
Further studies need to be conducted with larger samples to obtain more empirical evidence
about this issue. Moreover, the construct of English proficiency in this study was only limited to
listening comprehension, reading comprehension and grammar so further research should measure
this construct more comprehensively by including other language skills in the test. Another potential
phenomenon to investigate related to this issue is how the ambiverts mobilize language learning
strategies to adapt to different learning environments. The strategies used by the introverted and
extroverted learners have been well documented but similar research on the ambiverted language
learners has been scant. In-depth studies to explore the language learning strategies utilized by
the ambiverts will be an important piece of puzzle that enables educators to get a comprehensive
insight into how learners with different personalities can be equally successful in learning a foreign
language.

REFERENCES

Abali, F. (2006). The effect of personality traits extroversion/introversion on verbal and interactive behaviors
of learners. Ankara: Bilkent University.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Longman.
Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-Extraversion and the EFL Proficiency of Japanese Students. Language
Learning, 32(1), 109–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00521.x
Cain, S. (2011). Quiz: Are you an Introvert or an Extrovert? (And Why It Matters). Psychology Today.
Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/quiet-the-power-introverts/201103/quiz-are-
you-introvert-or-extrovert-and-why-it-matters
Chen, M. -L., & Hung, L. -M. (2012). Personality type, perceptual style preferences, and strategies for
learning English as a foreign language. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(9),
1501–1510. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.9.1501
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., & Mu, Z. (2015). Survey study: The correlation between introversion/extroversion and oral
English learning outcome. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(3), 581-587.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Davidson, I. J. (2017). The ambivert: A failed attempt at a normal personality. Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences, 53(4), 1–19. DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.21868
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.

40
 Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2013). Impact of extroversion and introversion on language-learning behaviors. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(5), 819–825. DOI: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.5.819
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. (2013). Personality types and languages learning strategies: Chameleons changing
colours. System, 41(3), 598–608. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.07.011
Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). How introverts versus extroverts approach small-group argumentative discussions.
The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 183–197. DOI: 10.1086/499699
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International
Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 271–278. DOI: 10.1515/IRAL.2003.012
Oxford, R. L., Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles: research and practical
considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20(4), 439–456. DOI:
10.1016/0346-251X(92)90057-A
Wakamoto, N. (2000). Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extroversion and
introversion. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(1), 71–81. DOI:
10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.71.

41

View publication stats