Results from a multiple regression using personality traits as indicators of English proficiency as measured by TOEIC. Presented Feb. 8 2009 at TUJ Colloquium (Tokyo, Japan).

1. Matthew Apple Nara National College of Technology Personality and English Proficiency TUJ Colloquium, Temple University Japan, February 8, 2009

3. Why personality? The most individual Instinctive, intuitive Least understood Least important? Individual differences

4. Personality = ? “ A person's whole character and nature” “ [C]onsistent patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving...” dimensions traits

5. INTJ

6. extraversion-introversion The MBTI sensing-intuiting thinking-feeling judging-perceiving Jungian archetypes The Myer's Briggs Type Indicator

7. Eysenck's “Big Three” P – E – N

8. P Psychotic Vs “ Tendermindedness”

9. E Extraversion Vs Introversion

10. N Neuroticism Vs Emotional stability

11. “ The Big Five” Greenberg/Costa/McCrae

12. The Big Five O C E A N O penness C onscientiousness E xtraversion-introversion A greeableness N euroticism

13. Extraversion-introversion (EI) “ Super-traits” Emotional Stability (Emo) Conscientiousness (Con)

14. SLA and personality Rubin, Naiman, etc. Ely, Ehrman, Oxford, etc. Gardner, MacIntyre, etc. 1970s 1980/90s 2000s Brown et al. (2001) Verhoeven & Vermeer (2002)

15. Studies in Japan MBTI P-E-N (Eysenck's EPQ) Yawate-Guilford Personality Inventory (Y/GPI)

16. Problems Small N -sizes Too many questionnaire items No standardized test scores No construct validity

17. Study Background: Participants 186 3 rd year technical college students

18. 5 departments 5 intact classes Study Background: Participants

19. 28 items 4 hypothesized factors Study Background: Questionnaire

20. EI – Extraversion/Introversion (8 items) Emo – Emotional Stability (7 items) Con – Conscientiousness (7 items) D – Desire to communicate (6 items) Study Background: Questionnaire

21. Study Background: Proficiency Exam TOEIC T-List T-Read T-Tot

22. Analysis Methods Descriptive statistics (check assumptions)

23. Convert TOEIC into standardized z-scores Analysis Methods

24. Rasch analysis of construct validity Analysis Methods

25. Principal Components Analysis (factor analysis) Analysis Methods

26. Convert items on factors into z-scores (factor scores) Analysis Methods

27. Correlation analysis (factor scores and TOEIC) Analysis Methods

28. Multiple regression analysis DV = TOEIC IV = Con, Emo, EI, D Analysis Methods

30. Rasch Analysis results Person reliabilities:* .80 to .88 *most similar to traditional Cronbach's alpha estimates as measure of respondent consistency

31. Rasch Analysis results Item reliabilities:* .94 to .96 *Demonstrates how accurately items actually measure the construct for which they were intended

32. Rasch Analysis results EI (Extraversion-Introversion) Item 5 (ei2) misfit the construct

33. Rasch Analysis results ei2: Feel at ease in a large group of people たくさんの人の中にいると落ち着く

34. Table 1: Factor Analysis Factor Analysis results

35. Factor Analysis results Four factors Cumul. Variance: 56.74% All loadings above .50* *Stevens (1992) = .40 min.

36. Correlation Analysis results Table 2: Correlation Analysis

37. Correlation Analysis results TOEIC sections and Total (a given!) T-List and T-Read = medium? r = .55

38. Correlation Analysis results Conscientiousness r = .18* (T-Read)

39. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis DV = T-Read IVs (in order) Conscientiousness** Emotional Stability* Extraversion-introversion Desire to communicate

40. Hierarchical MR Analysis results R 2 = .07, F (1,166) = 3.05 ( p = .02) 1.64 0.12 0.08 0.13 D 1.13 0.09 0.08 0.09 EI -1.54 -0.12 0.08 -0.12 Emo 2.43* 0.18 0.08 0.18 Con t β SEB B

41. And…? One personality factor significantly predicted English reading scores… But… Discussion and interpretation

42. The stats mean… R 2 = .07 β = .18 7% of TOEIC score differences explained 3% accounted for by Conscientiousness

43. What happened? What is “English Proficiency”? Discussion and interpretation

44. TOEIC Listening TOEIC Reading Seven parts 200 total questions a-b-c-d

45. Passive knowledge Active knowledge Writing Speaking

46. Concentration Memory Test strategies Stamina

47. More caveats… Small sample size ( N = 167) Mostly male students All engineering majors Researcher = teacher

48. Next time… 1. Bigger sample size 4. Speaking assessment 2. Balanced gender reps 3. Inclusion of more majors

49. Matthew Apple Nara National College of Technology Personality and English Proficiency [email_address] [email_address] Thank you for your time and patience!