Introduction
Over the last few decades, an extensive
body of research has been accumulated in
the field of second language writing,
revealing that research in this field is a
rapidly growing area in second language
acquisition (e.g. Kroll, 1990; Leki, 1995;
Petric & Czarl, 2003; Wong, 2005).
According to Silva and Brice (2004), the
reason that research on second language
writing has become an important if not
overriding focus of work in second
language studies partly comes from
globalization and the need to use computer
literacy in order to communicate in writing
with others. Further, the shift in emphasis
from the product of writing to the
recursive and non-linear process and the
social context of writing has had a
profound effect on the perception of how
writing develops. All these factors have
contributed to “the legitimacy of this area
of inquiry” as an independent one in
second language acquisition research
(Silva & Brice, 2004, p.70).
Researchers have come to accept the
inevitability of writing strategies as being
prominent in second language acquisition
research (e.g., Dehghan & Razmjoo, 2012;
Abdollahzadeh, 2010; Mu & Carrington,
2007; Petric & Czarl, 2003). The research
suggests that learners must be made aware
of and equipped with appropriate second
language writing strategies. Awareness
raising might in fact focus on specific
strategies such as macro-strategies of
planning, drafting and revising, micro-strategies of consulting with teachers and
classmates, re-reading and writing out the
writing prompts, and self-regulation
strategies of goal setting, self-monitoring
and self-evaluation (see Leki, 1995;
Wong, 2005). Therefore, examining the
kinds of strategies second language writers
deploy can offer insights into what writers
think they are doing or should be doing
and thus increase their understanding of
the specifics of the writing process (Silva,
1990). By the same token, as Grabe (2001)
suggests, such inquiries can help develop a
“predictive model” of the construct of
writing which can be useful for
instructional, research, and educational
practices, and for curricular planning and
assessment. Equipped with the right
writing strategies, second language
learners can better understand, assess, and
consequently improve their learning and
writing, and thus become more
autonomous second language learners
(Bloom, 2008).
One variable that may play a role in
learners’ preference for one writing
strategy over another is personality type.
The rationale for the present inquiry is that
strategy instruction should be geared to
learners’ individual and situational or
group needs (Takeuchi, Griffiths, & Coyl,
2007). Moreover, as Chastain (1988)
noted, writing lends itself most naturally to
individual practice. That is, no two
learners are the same and their different
learning backgrounds and personalities
will influence how they approach writing
tasks in a second language. The great
difficulties that second language writers
experience in expressing themselves in
English (see Hyland, 2003) might
originate from individual differences as
the point of convergence of different
linguistic, social, and psychological
factors. Therefore, it can be assumed that
the individual learner’s approach to
writing is to some extent shaped by
individual differences. As Ehrman and
Oxford (1995, p.324) suggest, research
aiming at probing psychological factors is
promising in that it offers “an accessible
conceptual framework” for language
trainers to enhance learners’ self-regulation.
With the above-mentioned concerns, a
number of researchers (e.g. Callahan 2000;
Dörnyei, 2005; Cohen & Macaro, 2007;
Marefat, 2006) propose that learners’
goals, attitudes, personality types, and
abilities, which are likely to be crucial
factors in their successful acquisition of
writing skills, should be considered in
second language research. The present
study was an attempt in this direction to
examine the relationship between writing
strategies and personality types of Iranian
EFL learners. A brief review of the
relevant studies done in these two areas is
presented below.
Second language strategy research
Oxford (1990) classified learning
strategies to direct and indirect ones.
Direct strategies, including memory,
cognitive, and compensation strategies, are
“those behaviors which directly involve
the target language and directly enhance
language learning” (p.10). Memory
strategies are concerned with storing new
information in memory for later retrieval
and use. Cognitive strategies deal with
“the actual mental processes involved in
developing a text while writing”
(Abdollahzadeh, 2010, p.66). These may
include relating old information to new
information, making connections and
inferences, and applying background
knowledge. Compensation strategies
compensate for deficiencies in the writer’s
limited knowledge base. Indirect
strategies, including metacognitive,
affective, and social strategies, are “those
behaviors which do not directly involve
the target language but are nevertheless
essential for effective language learning”
(Oxford, 1990, p.450). Metacognitive
strategies are the executive strategies
which learners utilize to monitor, plan,
hypothesize, and evaluate their
performance on learning tasks, as in
planning before writing. Social strategies
involve seeking help from teachers, peers,
and others. Affective strategies are
techniques helping learners to better
handle their emotions, attitude, and
motivation in their writing tasks. Ellis
(1994) asserts that Oxford’s taxonomy of
language learning strategies is a thorough
and efficient categorization and can be
adopted and used in particular task setting.
The implication is that the taxonomy of
learning strategies can be applied to
writing tasks.
There is an ample body of research on
both general and specific writing strategies
that second language learners utilize when
producing a text in the target language.
These studies on writing strategies have
referred to:
general macro writing processes L2
writers deploy in writing tasks such as
planning, writing, and revising (Hatasa
& Soeda, 2000; Sasaki, 2000, 2002);
the different writing behaviors of first
and second language writers (Lally,
2000a; Raimes, 1991);
the use of very specific strategies like
patch writing, avoidance,
backtracking, evaluation, rehearsing,
reformulation, rhetorical refining
(Manchón, Roca de Larios & Murphy
2007, p.231);
the use of the first language in second
language writing (Cohn & Brooks-Carson, 2001; Wang & Wen, 2002);
the impact of specific strategies or
categories of strategies on either
second language writing achievement
(Olivares-Cuhat, 2002) or proficiency
(Aziz,1995); and
how writers perceive and think about
writing tasks (Cumming,1989; Petric
& Czarl, 2003).
In her study of writing strategy use and
achievement, Oliveras-Cuhat (2002) found
that her students most frequently utilized
cognitive strategies. Aziz (1995)
emphasized the importance of cognitive
strategies in her study of writing
proficiency. The results of the study,
however, indicated that those second
language students who used both cognitive
and metacognitive strategies in their
English writing were able to outperform
those who used cognitive strategies alone.
Baker and Boonkit (2004) investigated the
reading and writing strategies of
successful and unsuccessful students in an
English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
context in Thailand using Oxford’s
classification of strategies. The results of
the study showed that metacognitive,
cognitive, and compensation strategies
were the most frequently used ones.
Likewise, Mu and Carrington (2007)
reported that, overall, post-graduate
Chinese students used rhetorical strategies,
metacognitive strategies, cognitive
strategies, and social/affective strategies in
their writing practice. Overall, these
studies show the tendency of second
language learners toward the use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies in
their English writing.
Research into the use of strategies by
Iranian learners in their English language
writing is limited. There appear to be few
studies on writing strategies featuring
Iranian participants. In one study,
Yaghoubi (2003) examined the writing
strategy use among “high anxiety” and
“low anxiety” Iranian undergraduate EFL
writers and found that the former group of
writers made less use of cognitive,
metacognitive, social, affective,
compensation, and memory strategies
compared with the latter group. Both
groups used metacognitive strategies most
often and affective strategies least often. In
another study, Abdollahzadeh (2010)
examined English language learners’
writing strategies with reference to their
gender and years of study. In this study,
Abdollahzadeh found that metacognitive
and cognitive strategies were the most
frequently used strategies by all writers. It
was further found out that both the low-level and high-level (defined by year of
study) male and female learner–writers
used writing strategies with approximately
the same frequency. These two studies
show that the most frequently used writing
strategy is the metacognitive one among
undergraduate Iranian learners of English.
Fahandezh Sadi and Othman (2012)
investigated Iranian undergraduate
learners’ writing strategies with reference
to their different writing abilities. The
findings revealed that the two groups of
writers were different in their planning,
drafting, and reviewing behaviors.
Specifically, good and poor writers
differed in employing certain strategies
like rereading, repetition, use of the
mother tongue, and rehearsing. Such
findings are important because they
suggest that there might be some
consistent patterns of strategy differences
in the ways good writers compose their
texts, compared with poor writers. It is
noteworthy, however, that one might not
generalize the Fahandezh Sadi and
Othman findings because of the small
number of the participants.
The other strand of research on Iranian
EFL learners’ writing from the socio-cognitive perspective looked into post –
graduate students’ composing strategies.
In his longitudinal study, Riazi (1997)
reported three sets of composing
strategies, namely cognitive,
metacognitive and social strategies,
employed by postgraduate students.
Likewise, Dehghan and Razmjoo (2012)
concluded that rhetorical, socio-affective
and cognitive strategies are used more
widely and metacognitive and social
strategies less often by postgraduate
students in a foreign language context.
Personality type in research on writing
process
At early stages, the field of composition
looked first at the what of writing, the
product. It then added the how of writing,
the processes. It then shifted its outlook to
the “why” of writing with a focus on the
affective and cognitive styles of the
learners (Brand, 1987; Silva, 1990; Sasaki,
2000). This line of inquiry can be of help
to teachers and researchers in
understanding why second language
writers are successful in some language
activities but not in others, why they
demonstrate certain writing behaviors but
not others, and why they are fluent in
producing certain written content but not
in producing others (Jensen & Ditiberio,
1984).
One variable that may play a role in and
affect the writing process is personality
type (Callahan, 2000; Jensen &
DiTeiberio, 1987; Marefat, 2007). This
psychological notion was first put forward
by Carl Jung (Jung, 1971), whose ideas
were later developed by Katherine Briggs
and her daughter, Isabel Myers, into a self-
report instrument called the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1987).
The MBTI measures personality along
four bipolar dimensions: Introvert (I) –
Extravert (E), Sensing (S) – Intuition (I),
Thinking (T) – Feeling (F), and Judging
(J) –Perceiving (P).
Kroeger and Thueson (1988), discussing
the characteristics of the four type
dimensions, mention that the Introvert–
Extravert dimension involves the source of
people’s energy. If individuals derive their
energy from their inner world of thoughts
and ideas, they are considered as
Introverts; Extraverts, on the other hand,
derive their energy from the outer world of
people and actions. The Sensing–Intuition
dimension deals with the ways of
perceiving or taking in information. The
Sensing type of individual makes direct
use of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, or
touching to record carefully the particulars
of one’s environment while the Intuitive
type of individual gathers information
heuristically which means they gather
information in a more random manner
rather than a sequential fact-oriented
fashion. The Thinking–Feeling dimension
is responsible for the decision-making
function. The Thinking type makes
decisions based on objective, analytic, and
detached criteria while the Feeling type
bases decisions on interpersonal factors.
Finally, the Judging–Perceiving dimension
refers to the desire for structure and
closure. The Judging type of individual
prefers to have things planned and decided
while the Perceiving type of individual
likes to keep things flexible and open-ended.
Very few researchers have examined
learners’ composing strategies and their
MBTI index. In a seminal article, Callahan
(2000) depicts the relationship between
reflective writing and personality types
derived from the MBTI. Extraverts, who
respond to reflecting about the outer
world, are better talkers than writers.
Therefore, they do not go for keeping
journals and preparing portfolios in which
metacognitive processes are involved.
Also, the extraverted students are field
dependent and wish the instructor to set
goals for them. Introverts, on the contrary,
tend to set goals and standards in a given
task. They are reluctant to ask for advice
and prefer to complete their tasks alone.
Callahan further adds that Sensing
individuals find reflective writing an
opportunity to go back and control
whether they have missed anything. Their
written product is verifiable, lengthy, and
detailed. Intuitive types, however, often
start their writing with the meaning of
complex events and may overlook details
essential to the readers’ understanding of
the text.
Callahan depicts Thinking individuals as
writers who are interested in describing the
pros and cons of issues in writing. They
are more likely to organize their writing
into clear categories and focus on clarity,
to the point that they forget to interest the
audience. Feeling types are less likely to
follow an outline as closely as Thinking
types do. Furthermore, Judging types may
focus too soon or too much on revision.
Perceiving types, on the other hand, tend
to gather information indefinitely and have
trouble limiting themselves to meeting
deadlines.
As regards the Judging/Perceiving
dichotomy, the judging individuals are
depicted as writers who tend to set goals
for future improvement easily; they may
focus too much on revision. In contrast,
the perceiving ones tend to resist
explorations on their future planning and
find it difficult to draw conclusions. In
fact, their work is always in progress.
Likewise, Carroll (1995) addressed the
mutual impact of the personality types of
writers and raters on the rating of the
written texts. The results indicated that the
personality types of writers affected the
ratings that their essays received, and the
personality types of raters affected the
ratings they gave to essays. In the same
vein, Walter (1996) studied the
distribution of personality types as
measured by the MBTI in upper-level
English, journalism, and business
communication courses. The results
showed that those students who were
similar in personality types to both their
instructors and the most prevalent
personality types represented in their
discipline tended to receive the highest
grades. The studies mentioned above have
provided good insights into the way
personality types might interact with
learners’ performance. However, the
researchers have a long way to go to probe
the nature of this interaction. One
promising line of research appears to be
the possible contribution of personality
types to the use of writing strategies.
Although different taxonomies have been
suggested to tap into the types of writing
strategies (see Manchón, Roca de Larios
& Murphy, 2007), the present study
adopted Oxford’s (1990) inventory to
measure L2 writers’ deployment of
strategies. As language learning strategies
are assumed to be directly related to
personality-related factors (Ellis, 1994), it
is reasonable to extend this assumption to
second language skill-based strategies.
Hence, there is justification for studying
the relationship between individual
variables such as personality type and
writing strategy use. A study based on the
former assumption is Ehrman and Oxford
(1989), who conducted an investigation
probing the relationship between
personality types and strategy use adopting
SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning). Their results revealed that
Extraverts utilized affective and
visualization strategies more frequently
than Introverts. However, Introverts made
a greater use of strategies for
communicating meaning than did
Extraverts. Also, Intuitives employed
affective strategies, and authentic language
use, more frequently than Sensing people.
The Feeling type of individuals showed a
greater level of use of general study
strategies than did their Thinking
counterparts. One year later, Ehrman and
Oxford (1990) conducted a study with 20
adults learning Turkish in the United
States. The findings of the study indicated
that Extraverts preferred social strategies
and functional practice strategies, while
Introverts preferred the strategy of
learning on their own.
In a study conducted on 254 Japanese
college students, Wakamoto (2000) found
that Extraversion on the MBTI was
significantly related to functional practice
strategies and social-affective strategies,
though unlike the Ehrman and Oxford
studies, introversion was not correlated
with any preferred use of SILL strategies.
Nikoopour and Amini Farsani (2010), in a
study of 137 graduate Iranian EFL
university students, reported that learners
with Extravert and Introvert personality
types did not show any significant
difference regarding the use of language
learning strategies. Both Sensing and
Intuitive learners preferred to use affective
strategies. The findings also indicated that
Thinking as well as Feeling learners used
memory and social strategies. Perceiving
learners used two categories of strategies,
cognitive and compensation, whereas
Judging learners employed only
compensation strategies. The picture
emerged from the above studies suggests
that personality types are related to the use
of language learning strategies in general.
However, the picture is far from clear due
to the limitations of the studies including
the types of language learners and the lack
of due focus on skill-based strategies and
their relationship with personality factors.
In the context of Iran, although there have
been some studies focusing on the
learners’ use of skill-based strategies in
their practice of writing in English (see
Abdollahzadeh, 2010; Dehghan &
Razmjoo, 2012; Fahandezh Sadi &
Othman, 2012;), no study has addressed
the relationship between learning styles
and writing strategies. The gap becomes
more evident when it comes to studies
dealing with EFL students especially the
mainstream graduate students. The present
study was an attempt to examine the
frequency of writing strategies and
personality types of Iranian EFL learners
and to probe the relationship between
these two. The following research
questions guided the research study:
1. Which categories of writing
strategies do Iranian graduates
use most frequently in writing
in English?
2. What are the personality types
of Iranian graduates based on
data collected through the
MBTI questionnaire?
3. What is the relationship
between the personality types
of Iranian graduates and their
writing strategy preferences?
Method
The present study was conducted in a
number of universities in Iran, where
TEFL courses are offered at both PhD and
MA Levels. The post-graduate students’
formal writing experience before entering
the MA program was basically limited to
two obligatory undergraduate courses in
writing, namely, Principles of Writing and
Essay Writing. In their MA program, they
had to take the course entitled ‘Advanced
Writing’, or as labeled by some instructors
‘Writing in English for Specific Academic
Purposes’, with the focus on academic
writing. The purpose of this course is to
review the basic features of English
academic rhetoric in order to help MA
students develop an ability to write
acceptable (academic) texts in English as a
Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL), and
to help them use their individual writing
processes to construct academically well-argued texts in a familiar genre and
transfer this ability to produce texts in an
unfamiliar genre. Some topics that may be
covered in this course include unity
(coherence and cohesion), expository
paragraphs, essay writing, writing
summaries, resumes, critiques, writing
abstracts, introduction to research articles,
writing argumentative texts, and writing a
proposal and a thesis. In Iranian
universities, the product-based approach to
writing is still in use (Birjandi & Malmir,
2009).
The participants were 220 male and female
Iranian EFL learners between the ages of
23-30 studying English at the graduate
level. All of whom had registered for the
Advanced Writing course of the graduate
program of the universities in which the
study was conducted. The estimated
proficiency level of the participants, as
reported by the instructors, was upper
intermediate or advanced. The participants
who volunteered to take part in the study
came from five universities of high
reputation in Tehran. Attempts were made
to make the sample as representative as
possible by selecting the participants from
the high-ranking universities. The criteria
for selecting the universities consisted of:
the rank-ordering of Iranian universities
based on qualified ELT (English Language
Teaching) faculty members and
educational facilities, as well as the typical
weight and importance ascribed to TEFL
programs at graduate level in Iran.
Participants had all passed the Iranian
national matriculation examination for
entering university and had achieved a BA
degree either in English language and
literature or English translation. The
reason why the participants were selected
from among graduates was the importance
given in the graduate program to students’
development of writing skill due to its
crucial role in reporting MA research in
the form of a thesis of extensive length,
almost 18000 words.
The instruments utilized in this study
consisted of two questionnaires, namely a
Writing Strategy Questionnaire and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
questionnaire. The Writing Strategy
Questionnaire (Abdollahzadeh, 2010),
developed in Persian with reference to
Oxford`s (1990) classification of language
learning strategy types, was used to gain
information on the writing strategies
adopted by language learners. The purpose
of this questionnaire was to identify which
writing strategies these learners were
using. The first section of the
questionnaire gave information about the
purpose of the questionnaire and elicited
background information on the
participants’ age, gender, and university.
The second part of the questionnaire
consisted of 45 items developed on the
basis of the subcategories of strategies
highlighted by Oxford (1990) with each
strategy type tapping into the participants’
use of memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, social, and affective
strategies in writing. The calculated
Cronbach Alpha was 0.84, showing a high
degree of internal consistency.
The MBTI questionnaire is one of the
most well researched personality scales.
Kirby and Barger (1998) have reported on
a wealth of studies providing
“significant evidence for the reliability
and validity of the MBTI in a variety of
groups with different cultural
characteristics” (p.260). In the same
vein, Murray (1990) examined the
psychometric quality of the MBTI and
reported that this instrument has
acceptable reliability and validity. As for
the construct validity of this
questionnaire, a number of researchers
have confirmed the four factors
predicted by the theory (e.g. Harrington
& Loffredo, 2010; Tischler, 1994).
Consisting of 60 self-report items, the
MBTI measures personality preferences
along four scales: Extraversion–
Introversion, Sensing–Intuition, Thinking–
Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving. This
instrument has acceptable reliability and
validity (Marefat, 2006). In the current
study, the Persian version of MBTI
(Nikoopour & Amini Farsani, 2010) was
used. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to
estimate the reliability of this version and,
as reported, it was 0.78.
Data were collected using the Writing
Strategy Questionnaire and the MBTI
questionnaire. Access to participants was
gained through the researchers’ contacts at
the universities. The classroom instructors
were briefed with regard to the purposes of
the study and the data collection
procedures. A uniform procedure was
followed at all five universities to collect
the questionnaire data. The instructors
briefly described the purpose and design of
the questionnaires and explained to their
students how they should respond to them.
The participants were required to answer
the questions with respect to the specific
writing course they had taken so that they
could answer the items with more
confidence (Petric & Czarl, 2003).
Results and discussion
The first research question dealt with the
types and frequency of the writing
strategies utilized by the learners. Table1
presents the mean and standard deviation
of data set.
As can be seen in Table 1, the graduate
Iranian EFL learners tended to use all
types of writing strategies. The first two
top mean scores go to metacognitive and
cognitive strategies, showing that Iranian
EFL learners mainly used these two
strategy types in their second language
writing. The lowest mean goes to memory
strategy use, indicating that this is the least
preferred strategy type for the participants.
The second research question targeted the
personality types of Iranian graduates
based on the collected data. Table 2
depicts the percentage of each bipolar
personality type. Comparing the
percentages, one can see which aspect of
each bipolar strategy type is dominant
among the participants. According to
Table 2, the participants fall primarily into
the dominant categories of Introvert
(55%), Sensing (62%), Thinking (59%),
and Judging (70%).
To answer the third research question, a
multiple regression analysis was run.
Table 3 reports on the ANOVA which was
run to assess the overall significance of
our model. As Table 3 shows, the one-way
ANOVA results show a significant overall
relationship between the predictor,
personality types, and the predicted
variable, writing strategies (F = 60.929,
p<0.05).
The existence of a significant relationship
between personality types and writing
strategies as a whole was supported by the
ANOVA results. In order to estimate the
contribution of each of the individual
variables, the standardized beta
coefficients were calculated (Table 4). The
beta value indicates the weight of the
predictor value. For example, a beta value
of 0.26 shows that a change of one
standard deviation in the predictor variable
(personality types) will result in a change
of 0.26 standard deviation in the criterion
variable (writing strategies).
As can be seen in Table 4, only the two
personality types of Feeling and Judging
have a significant relationship with writing
strategies, since their p values are less than
0.05. This result shows that the personality
types of Feeling and Judging were much
stronger predictors of the use of writing
strategies such as memory, compensation,
affective, social, metacognitive, and
cognitive strategies compared with the
other personality types.
Discussion
With regard to the first research question,
the results showed that Iranian EFL
learners at the graduate level reported
employing all of the different types of
writing strategies. The two top preferred
strategy types for them were
metacognitive and cognitive strategies.
The least preferred strategy type was the
memory writing strategy. The rank-order
of the self-reported use of strategy types
by the participants was: metacognitive>
cognitive> affective> social>
compensation> memory strategies. This
finding, of course with a slight change in
the rank, confirms the previous research
literature (Aziz, 1995; Dehghan &
Razmjoo, 2012; Oliveras–Cuhat, 2002). It
also supports the finding that
metacognitive strategies are the most
frequently used writing strategies by
Iranian learners of English as a foreign
language (Abdollahzadeh, 2010;
Yaghoubi, 2003; Riazi 1997).
Furthermore, compensation and memory
strategies were found to be the least
frequently used strategies by the Iranian
graduates. This finding is again in line
with the other studies done in Iran
(Abdollahzadeh, 2010; Nikoopour &
Amini Farsani, 2010; Yaghoubi, 2003). A
likely interpretation of the more frequent
use of metacognitive writing strategies in
these high-ranked universities can be the
nature of academic endeavors in these
universities. In Iranian universities in
general explicit instruction is commonly
adopted in the course of Academic
Writing. Educational academic contexts
like that of Iran in which learners are
expected to operate is a pre-determined
way are seemingly incompatible with the
creation of a metacognitively-enhanced
atmosphere which can give way to
learners’ collaborating with each other,
seeking practice opportunities, setting
goals and objective, schedualing, planning,
self-monitoring, and self-evaluating during
the writing process (Abdollahzadeh,
2010). This is confirmed by some
researchers such as Birjandi and Malmir
(2009) who assert that, in the context of
Iranian universities, teaching English
writing is based on the traditional
approach which seems less likely to
enhance a free-writing culture among the
students. The most frequent use of
metacognitive writing strategies suggests
that the approach to teaching writing is in
the process of change at least in the top
universities where the present study was
conducted. A second reason for the most
frequent use of metacognitive strategies
might lie in the fact that the learners who
took part in the present study were among
the most proficient post-graduate students
compared with their peers in other
universities and as a result were more
metacognitively equipped for the writing
process. As argued by Abdollahzadeh
(2010), the rather low use of memory
strategies, on the other hand, may be
attributed to the fact that Iranian graduate
EFL majors do not employ mnemonic
devices to improve their writing and to
revise and contextualize novel vocabulary
items or grammatical structures in their
compositions possibly because of the
adequacy of their linguistic competence
which might keep them away from using
this type of writing strategies.
Regarding the second research question,
Iranian EFL learners at the graduate level
tended to be more Introverts than
Extraverts, more Sensing than Intuitive,
more Thinking than Feeling, and finally
more Judging than Perceiving. This
finding is in line with prior research which
classified male and female graduate and
undergraduate Iranian EFL students and
their teachers into the Intuitive, Sensing,
Thinking and Judging types (Marefat,
2006).
With regard to the contribution of
personality types to the selection and use
of writing strategies, the results showed
that only the contribution of Judging and
Feeling personality types was significant.
We know that judgers have a natural
preference for control, planning, structure,
and organization. As mentioned by Jenson
and Ditiberio (1984: 290) “Judgers
naturally tend to work best in a structured,
arranged learning situation, and they like
to plan their work ahead.”
The Judging and Feeling personality types
as the dominant ones among the
participants reflects the status of teaching
and learning of English language,
especially writing, in the context of Iran,
as reiterated by a number of researchers
who have worked in the Iranian context
(e.g. Abdollahzadeh, 2010; Akbari, 2008;
Birjandi & Malmir, 2009, Kiany &
Movahedian, 2012). As a case in point,
Kiany and Movahedian (2012: 51) assert
that one of the most significant problems
with language education in Iran is “the
kind of quantitative orientation taken
toward education in general and language
education in particular. In other words, the
emphasis has been given to the products
rather than processes of education.” In line
with Kiany and Movahedian (2012), Anani
Sarab (2010) confirms that the traditional
approach with an emphasis on language
forms and structures is noticeable in the
foreign language curriculum. The views
expressed suggest that, with the
regimented approach to language teaching
in Iran, the learners are not provided with
opportunities to improvise and explore
learning in new contexts. Under such
circumstances, the results of the present
study with regard to the contributing
personality types to the selection and use
of writing strategies are not surprising.
Limitations
The major limitation of this study is our
reliance on self-reported data. The results
of this study should be complemented by
other studies eliciting other sources of
data, such as introspective data, learner
logs, journal writing etc. Moreover, the
correlational approach to probing the
relationship between personality types and
writing strategies limit the interpretation to
the relationship of the variables of interest
ignoring the impact of other variables such
as anxiety, motivation, and gender on the
personality and the writing of the writers.
Therefore, researchers are advised to adopt
a multimethod approach to identifying
personality types of the writers. More
sophisticated statistical techniques (such as
structural equation modeling) that are
capable of showing cause and effect
relationships are in order (Ellis, 2008).
Because of the limited scope of this study,
researchers were not able to study all
effective variables in the use of writing
strategies and their probable links with
personality types. Therefore, to further
validate the results of the current study,
further research is needed to probe the
other factors influencing the deployment
of these specific strategies in the Iranian
EFL context.
Conclusion and implications
One of the major outcomes of the present
study is that writing-based strategies were
employed differently by EFL post-graduate students. They used
metacognitive writing strategies most
frequently and memory strategies the least
frequently. Another outcome is that the
only personality types being related to
writing strategies were Feeling and
Judging indices.
A number of studies have examined the
writing strategies which learners employ
in different contexts. However, the
relationship between writing strategies and
personality types has remained under-researched. The literature is replete with
persuasive arguments in favor of the
benefits to teachers of being aware of
learners’ needs and individual differences
across different contexts and tasks (e.g.
Ellis, 2008). The study reported here
provides support to the notion that the
relationship between personality types and
strategies is moderated by the context of
teaching and learning. Data coming from
diverse contexts can provide a better
picture of this relationship since the effects
of personality might be situation-dependent, obvious in some learning
contexts or tasks but not in others
(Dörnyei, 2005).
The findings of the present study have
several implications for EFL instruction,
especially with regard to teaching writing.
Investigating what strategies second
language writers employ can provide
useful insights into what writers think they
are doing or should be doing and thus
increase their understanding of the
specifics of this process (Silva, 1990). As
suggested by Grabe (2001), our better
understanding of the writing process can
enhance the predictive power of pedagogic
models of writing. Since Iranian EFL
graduates showed that they had utilized
metacognitive writing strategies mostly
and memory strategies in the lowest
degree, it is reasonable to suggest
awareness raising with regard to the
preferred writing strategies among
instructors and students.
Given the product-based approach to
language teaching in Iran, this line of
inquiry should help teachers understand
the possible reasons underlying the
variable performance of students and their
lack of success in writing activities which
are not compatible with their preferred
strategies. Moreover, learners’ awareness
of their personality types might lead to
more efforts on their part to develop their
natural strengths and propensities.
Regarding the instructors, such awareness
might aid in methodological choices,
helping in the recognition of individual
differences and improving teacher–student
understanding. Consequently, teachers can
equip their learners with a mechanism to
see their own progress in learning and the
contribution of strategies in accomplishing
writing tasks. The suggestion is that EFL
learners are exposed to a complete
inventory of writing strategies to be able to
use the strategies they prefer depending on
their personality type. In this way,
learners’ autonomy can be enhanced in
writing tasks.
