STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCES WITH DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES.

(1)

STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCES

WITH DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

ORLI BINTA TUMANGGOR

Registration Number: 8146112046

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

Tumanggor, Orli Binta. 8146112046. Students’ Speaking Performances with Different Personalities. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School. State University of Medan. 2016.

This study deals with students’ speaking peformances with different personalities. It aims at finding out how speaking performances of extrovert and introvert students are and why they speak the way they are. This study was conducted in qualitative method of which design was descriptive case study. The sources of data for this study were 31 students of class B 2015, majoring English Literature in State University of Medan (UNIMED); meanwhile the data

was taken from students’ utterances and performances in speaking class. The data was analyzed by using Interactive Model by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana. To find out the types of personalities, the researcher used theory of Eysenck, to assess the students’ speaking performances, the researcher used indicators suggested by Bachman and Alderson, while to find out the reasons why the students speak the way they are, researcher used theory of Latha and Ramesh. Based on the data analysis, the first finding shows that extrovert students can gain good fluency and interaction, but they are lack in range, accuracy, and coherence. Meanwhile, introvert students can gain good range, accuracy, and coherence, they are lack of fluency and interaction. And as the second finding, it was found four factors why extrovert students spoke the way they were namely lack of subject matter, family background, lack of motivation, and friendship/ relationship influence. Meanwhile, introvert students speak the way they are due to three factors namely learner inhibition, family background and writing and reading habit.

Keywords: speaking performance, extrovert, introvert, descriptive qualitative, interactive model

(6)

ABSTRAK

Tumanggor, Orli Binta. 8146112046. Kemampuan Berbicara Siswa dengan Kepribadian yang Berbeda. Thesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pascasarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2016.

Penelitian ini mengkaji tentang kemampuan berbicara siswa dengan kepribadian yang berbeda. Tujuan penelitian ini menemukan bagaimanakah kemampuan berbicara siswa dengan kepribadian ekstovert dan introvert serta menemukan alasan mengapa mereka berbicara sedemikian rupa. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menerapkan metode kualitatif dalam desain studi kasus deskriptif. Sumber data dalam penelitian ini adalah 31 mahasiswa Kelas B stambuk 2015 jurusan Sastra Inggris di Universitas negeri Medan (UNIMED); sedangkan data diambil dari ujaran – ujaran dan penampilan mahasiswa di kelas berbicara. Data penelitian ini dianalisis menggunakan Interaktif Model oleh Miles, Huberman, dan Saldana. Untuk mengelompokkan tipe kepribadian mahasiswa, peneliti menggunakan teori Eysenk, untuk menilai kemampuan berbicara mahasiswa, peneliti menerapkan indikator yang dikemukakan oleh Bachman dan Alderson, sementara untuk menemukan alasan mengapa mereka berbicara sedemikian rupa, peneliti menggunakan teori Latha dan Ramesh. Berdasarkan hasil analisis data dapat disimpulkan bahwa temuan pertama menunjukkan bahwa siswa ekstrovert mampu memperoleh fluensi dan interaksi yang baik, namun masih kurang pada aspek isi, keakuratan, dan koherensi. Sementara itu, siswa introvert mampu memperoleh isi, keakuratan dan koherensi yang baik, namun masih kurang pada aspek fluensi dan interaksi. Selain itu, temuan kedua menunjukkan bahwa ada empat faktor yang menyebabkan ektrovert berbicara sedemikian rupa yaitu kurangnya pengetahuan, latar belakang keluarga, kurangnya motivasi dan pengaruh persahabatan. Sementara itu, siswa introvert berbicara sedemikian rupa karena tiga faktor yaitu inhibisi, latar belakang keluarga, dan faktor kebiasaan membaca dan menulis.

(7)

Pages

Abstract ... i

Abstrak ... ii

Acknowledgement ... iii

Table of Contents ... v

List of Appendices ... vii

List of Figure... viii

List of Tables ... x

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. The Problems of the Study ... 4

1.3. The Objectives of the Study ... 5

1.4. The Limitation of the Study ... 5

1.5. The Significance of the Study ... 5

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 7

A. Theoretical Framework ... 7

2.1. English Language Proficiency ... 7

2.2. Speaking Performance ... 8

2.3. Indicators of Speaking Performance ... 9

2.4. Factors affecting Speaking Performance... 13

2.5. Second Language Learning ... 16

2.6. Individual Differences ... 18

2.7. Personality ... 19

2.8. Extrovert and Introvert Personality ... 21

2.8.1. Defenition and Characteristics of Extrovert Personality ... 21

2.8.2. Defenition and Characteristics of Introvert Personality ... 22

B. Relevant Studies ... 23

(8)

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 28

3.1. Research Method ... 28

3.2.The Source of Data and Data ... 28

3.2.1 The Source of Data... 28

3.2.2.The Data ... 29

3.3. Instrument of Data Collection ... 30

3.4. Trustworthiness of the Study ... 30

3.5. Technique of Data Analysis ... 33

CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ... 37

4.1. Data Analysis ... 37

4.2. Finding ... 39

4.2.1. Speaking Performances of Extrovert Students ... 39

4.2.2. Speaking Performances of Introvert Students ... 45

4.2.3. Factors Affecting Extrovert and Introvert Students’ Speaking Performance ... 50

4.3. Discussions ... 55

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 58

5.1. Conclusions ... 58

5.2. Suggestions ... 58

REFERENCES ... 60

APPENDICES ... 63

(9)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

APPENDIX A Personality Likert Scale ... 63

APPENDIX B Likert Scale Questionnaires Filled by Students ... 65

APPENDIX C List of Extrovert and Introvert Students ... 85

APPENDIX D Transcription of Students’ Utterances Observation I ... 86

APPENDIX E Transcription of Students’ Utterances Observation II ... 87

APPENDIX F Transcription of Students’ Utterances Observation III ... 92

APPENDIX G Transcription of Students’ Utterances Observation IV ... 93

APPENDIX H Analysis of Extrovert Students’ Speaking Performances ... 100

APPENDIX I Analysis of Introvert Students’ Speaking Performances ... 123

APPENDIX J Interview Transcription ... 139

(10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Pages

Figure 2.1. Model for adult second language performance ... 17

Figure 2.2. Individual Learner Differences... 18

Figure 2.3. Conceptual Framework ... 28

(11)

LIST OF TABLES

Pages

Table 2.1. Analytic descriptors of spoken language ... 10

Table 2.2. Big Five Dimensions of Personality Trait ... 20

Table 2.3. Extrovert and Introvert Personalities’ Differences ... 23

Table 4.1. Speaking Performances of Extrovert Students ... 43

Table 4.2. Speaking Performances of Introvert Students ... 48

(12)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1The Background of the Study

Personality plays an important role in learning a second language. For second language learners to make maximum progress with their own learning styles, their individual differences must be taken into account. Personality is considered to be a pattern of unique characteristics of person‟s behaviour.

Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations, and behaviours in specific situation (Ryckman, 2004).

According to Cook (1991) “there are three reasons for being interested in personality, i.e. first, to gain scientific understanding, second, to access people and third, to change people”. For Cook, the first reason is theoretical means to gain scientific understanding of a person‟s personality concerned with or involving the theory of a personality or area of study rather than its practical application; while the second reason means that personality can be as an access to understand a person behaviour and attitude, then the third reason could change a person, the reasons are relevant and can be applied in real life situation.

It can be concluded that personality should be studied by the language teachers as well as the language learners. Considering personality is important to provide a more fruitful learning and convenient teaching environment both for the teachers and the learners, because there is a close connection between the personality of the student, the learning style and the learning strategy that the student develops in order to achieve better academic performance. For the

(13)

teachers, this consideration will help them to adjust the most appropriate strategy or method in teaching. Furthermore, for the students, recognizing their own personality dimension will give them a greater chance to acquire the second language successfully. This could be done by adjusting their personality and their learning style to increase their performance and achievement in the class.

Since the beginning of 1990s, there has been a growing interest on how personality correlates to the academic performance. Spolsky (1989) suggests that an individual‟s personality can have an effect on to what extent he is able to achieve information (1996). Personality, where extrovert-introvert exists, in general is viewed to be responsible factors for learners‟ success in learning second language or L2. Many language acquisition theories claim that the extroverts are the better language learners since they tend to be sociable, more likely to join groups and more inclined to engage in conversations both inside and outside the classroom (Cook, 1991). Davies (2004) describes a finding that from 6 out to 8 studies that employ oral language test extroverts performed better than introverts. Suliman (2014) also found that extroverts easily communicate in English classes and they would succeed. Meanwhile introverts seemed to avoid interaction in English classes.

Based on relevant studies shown above, extrovert students are better than the introvert one in the speaking performance. This assumption tends to affect

teachers‟ evaluation on students‟ speaking performance. Intuitively, many second

language teachers assume that a student with extrovert personality should get higher grade than students with introvert personality.

(14)

Intuitive feeling and generalization of perception that extrovert students is better than introvert students in speaking performance cannot be accepted as whole. It is supported by an event observed by the writer. When the writer had a chance to observe second semester students of speaking class in English Literature, State University of Medan, the writer found an interesting phenomenon. A student possessed introvert personality, turned to have a better performance than the extrovert students. In that occasion, the lecturer asked the student to give their prompt opinion about how corruption in Indonesia is. It is such a warming up before continuing to the next topic about reporting a news. Here are the the extrovert and introvert students‟ speaking performances.

Extrovert student said,

“Corruption is big problems that is growing fast in Indonesia

nowadays. The rule that is owned by Indonesia is low so there is no fear to do corruption again. Commission for corruption, emmmmm I mean KPK must free us from corruption and also monitoring the government. But I myself pointed out that KPK is more focus on tackling lower profile figures although recently some high profile figures such as emmmm judges, police have done corruption. Even, KPK also did corruption. There is no need of KPK anymore or the KPK must be also investigated”

Introvert student said,

“In my opinion, corruption has become a tradition in our country. It happens from the lowest to the highest level in government structure. Emmmm...Corruption affects and breaks all systems in Indonesia. Therefore, we should eradicate every single root of corruption for better Indonesia.”

In line with the speaking performances above, extrovert student uttered longer explanation than introvert one. The sentences was uttered in high fluency. But, the problem is the content or range of the explanation is merely focused on KPK, not corruption itself. It is also lack of accuracy since there are some grammatical errors such as corruption is big problems, it should be

(15)

corruption is a big problem, and KPK must free us from corruption and also monitoring the government, it should be KPK must free us from corruption and also monitor the government.

Meanwhile, introvert student in this case uttered shorter explanation in low fluency. But, the key point is that the introvert student succesfully explained about how corruption is, who involve, what the effect is and what should be done as the solution. The content or range of introvert student is better than the extrovert students and there is no grammatical error found. All sentences are also coherent.

Fluency tends to be used as the only aspect to be evaluated in speaking performances. In fact, based on the indicators of speaking assesment suggested by Bachman and Alderson (2004), there are five indicators should be considered including range, accuracy, fluency, interaction, and coherence.

This observation which drawn that introvert students is better than extrovert students is different from the relevant studies which state that extrovert students have better speaking performance than introvert students.This gap encourages the writer to conduct as further qualitative research entitled Students‟ Speaking Performances with Different Personalities.

1.2The Problems of the Study

Based on the background in the previous part, the study attempts to answer the following questions:

1. How are speaking performances of extrovert and introvert students? 2. Why do extrovert and introvert students speak the way they are?

(16)

1.3The Objectives of the Study

In line with the problem of the study, the objective of this study is aimed: 1. To find out the speaking performances of extrovert and introvert students. 2. To find out why extrovert and introvert students speak the way they are.

1.4 The Scope of the Study

This study is limited to the speaking performances of students with different personalities. John and Srivastava (1999) state that there are five dimensions of personality trait namely extrovert/ introvert, agreeableness/ antagonism, conciteousness/ lack of direction, neuroticism/ emotional stability, opennes/ closedness to experience. In this study, the personalities investigated are only extrovert and introvert. Kind of speaking task observed must be prompt speaking which are limited to debate, dialogue, and discussion. Speaking activities using note or a kind of presentation, gossiping are not observed. Indicators of speaking performance are limited to range, accuracy, fluency, interaction and coherence.

1.5The Significance of the Study

This study is important theoretically and practically. 1. Theoretical significance

This study is useful for the enrichment of linguistics knowledge especially second language acquisition and individual differences affecting the acquisition. It also enhances the knowledge in language teaching field related to personality.

(17)

2. Practical significance

Practically, the usefullness of findings is described as the following:

a. This study is useful for the students since taking personality into account can make them realize the weakness and the strength of their speaking ability based on the five speaking indicators. It can help them to improve their learning style which can maintain the strength and improve the weakness. It will lead the students into a better speaking performance. b. This study is important for the second language teacher. By considering

the personality trait can help teachers to adjust the most appropriate learning strategy in classroom activities especially in speaking class. It also prevents the teachers to evaluate the students‟ speaking performance based on intuitive feeling and generalization due to the students‟ personality

(18)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions

Based on the data analysis, there are some valuable points that can be concluded, they are:

1. Extrovert students can gain good fluency and interaction, but they are lack in range, accuracy, and coherence. The most poor skill is accuracy aspect. Meanwhile, introvert students can gain good range, accuracy, and coherence. The best aspect gained is accuracy. But, they are lack of fluency and interaction.

2. Based on the result of the observation and interview to the students, it was found some reasons why the students spoke as the way they were. For extrovert students, they spoke the way they were due to lack of subject matter, family background, lack of motivation, and friendship/ relationship influence. Meanwhile, introvert students they spoke the way they were due to learner inhibition, family background and habitual influence.

5.2. Suggestions

In line with this research, some important suggestions goes to the other researchers, the students, and the educators, they are as the followings:

1. Because this research was conducted only in five weeks, it was suggested that other researchers conduct the research in longer time so they can get

(19)

59 better result. They can also apply the relevant research in different level of age, different setting of speaking class, or different language proficiency. 2. Having read this research, all the students are expected to realize the relation

between their personality and their speaking performances or their language outcome. Knowing the weakness and the strength aspect gained by students with different personalities should be a fundamental reflection to maintain the strength and improve each weaknesses related to their own personalities. Moreover, the educators are suggested to take students‟ personality as one of considerations to apply appropriate teaching method. Besides, it is suggested not to use intuitive feeling to asses students‟ performances especially in speaking class. Five indicators including range, accuracy, fluency, interaction, and coherence must be assesesed to see students‟ speaking performances.

(20)

REFERENCES

Bachman and Alderson. 2004. Assesing Speaking. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan and Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brody and Ehrlichman. 1998. Personality Psychology: The Science of Individuality (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. 1994. Teaching by Principles: an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns, A., and Joyce, H. 1997. Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Center for

English Language Teaching and Research.

Clark and Clark. 1977. Psychology and Language. U.S.A: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cook, V. 1996. Second Language Learning (2nd ed.) New York: Edward Arnold. Cook ,V. 1991. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London:

Edward Arnold.

Davies, A,. and Elder, C. 2004. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.London: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eysenck, H. and Eysenck,S. 1963. Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., and Hyun, H. 2012. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education: Eighth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gan, Z. 2011. An Investigation of Personality and L2 Oral Performance.Journal

of Language Teaching and Research (online), Vol. 2 No. 6 (www.connection.ebscohost.com.) accessed on 15 Nov 2015, at 14.25 p.m

Gosling, S and Swann, W. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Elsevier: Journal of Research in Personality (online), Vol.5 No. 1.( www.sciencedirect.com) accessed on 15 Nov 2015, at 13.05

(21)

61 Hogan, R. 2005. In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners. Asian Social Science Journal (online), Vol. 18 No. 4. (http://www.mentis.international/assets/02040_indefense-of-pers

measurement.pdf) accessed on 03 Dec 2015, at 08.45

John, O. P., and Srivastava, S. 1999. The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. Pervin, Lawrence A (Ed) John, O . 1999. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.). (pp.

102-138). New York: Guilford Press.

Juan, M. and Tandoc, J. 2014. Students‟ Personality Traits and Language Learning Strategies in English. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce (online), Vol.5 No. 3 (https://www.questia.com/library/journal/ /students-personality-traits-and-language-learning) accesssed on 03 Dec 2015, at 09.25.

Krashen, S. 1998. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International.

Latha,M. and Ramesh,P. 2012. Teaching English as a Second language: Factors Affecting Speaking Skills. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) (online), Vol. 1 No. 79 (http://www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com/content/uploads/2015/03/Fact ors-Affecting-Students-Speaking.pdf ) accessed on 10 Dec 2015, at 10.05.

Lin, C. 2012. College Student Personality Traits Related to TOEIC and GEPT. Asian Journal of Educational Research (online), Vol. 2 No.4. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274364375_College_Student_ Personality_Traits_Related_to_TOEIC_and_GEPT) accessed on 12 Nov 2015, 09.10.

Lincoln and Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage.

McKay, S. L. 2006. Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of New Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., and Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. USA: Sage.

Nagaraj, G. 2008. English in the World. Chirala: Orient Longman.

(22)

62 Vol. 43 No. 2. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) accessed on 05 Jan 2016 at 10.00.

Ryckman, R. 2004. Theories of Personality. Wadsworth: Thompson Learning. Spratt,M., Pulverness, A., and Williams, M. 2005. Speaking. Chirala: Orient

Blackswan.

Savage, R. and Erdos, C. Individual differences in second language reading outcomes.

Asian Social Science Journal (online), Vol.15 No. 1.

(http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/genesee/18.pdf) accessed on 20 Nov 2015, at 09.45.

Saville,M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharp,A. 2008. Personality and Second Language Learning. Asian Social Science Journal (online), Vol.4: No.11. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/) accessed on 23 Nov 2015, at 10.15.

Suliman, F. 2014. The Role of Extrovert and Introvert Personality in Second Language Acquisition. Proceedings of SOCIOINT14 – International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities.Retrieved at www.ocerint.org/Socioint14_ebook/abstracts/ axx01.pdf. on November 2015

Tuan,N. and Mai,T. 2015. Factors Affecting Students‟ Speaking Performance at Le Thanh Hien High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research (online), Vol. 3: No 2 (http://www.multidisciplinaryjournals.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/03/factors-affecting-students%e2%80%99-speaking.pdf) accessed on 25 Nov 2015, at12.15.

Ushida, E. 2005. The Role of Students‟ Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning in Online Language Courses. Calico Journal, Vol.23 No. 1.(https://calico.org/html/article_131.pdf) accessed on 20 Dec 2015, 08.45.

Zabihi, R. 2011. Personality in English Language Proficiency and Achievement. Wilolud Journal: Continental J. Education Research (online), Vol. 4 No.1.(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?&rep=rep1&type=p df) accessed on 10 Dec 2015, 08.30

(1)

2. Practical significance

Practically, the usefullness of findings is described as the following:

(2)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions

Based on the data analysis, there are some valuable points that can be concluded, they are:

5.2. Suggestions

In line with this research, some important suggestions goes to the other researchers, the students, and the educators, they are as the followings:

1. Because this research was conducted only in five weeks, it was suggested that other researchers conduct the research in longer time so they can get

(3)

(4)

REFERENCES

Bachman and Alderson. 2004. Assesing Speaking. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan and Biklen. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. USA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brody and Ehrlichman. 1998. Personality Psychology: The Science of Individuality (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. 1994. Teaching by Principles: an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns, A., and Joyce, H. 1997. Focus on Speaking. Sydney: National Center for

English Language Teaching and Research.

Clark and Clark. 1977. Psychology and Language. U.S.A: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Cook, V. 1996. Second Language Learning (2nd ed.) New York: Edward Arnold. Cook ,V. 1991. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London:

Edward Arnold.

Davies, A,. and Elder, C. 2004. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.London: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eysenck, H. and Eysenck,S. 1963. Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

of Language Teaching and Research (online), Vol. 2 No. 6 (www.connection.ebscohost.com.) accessed on 15 Nov 2015, at 14.25 p.m

(5)

measurement.pdf) accessed on 03 Dec 2015, at 08.45

102-138). New York: Guilford Press.

Krashen, S. 1998. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice-Hall International.

Lincoln and Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage.

McKay, S. L. 2006. Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source Book of New Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.A., and Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. USA: Sage.

(6)

62 Vol. 43 No. 2. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) accessed on 05 Jan 2016 at 10.00.

Ryckman, R. 2004. Theories of Personality. Wadsworth: Thompson Learning. Spratt,M., Pulverness, A., and Williams, M. 2005. Speaking. Chirala: Orient

Blackswan.

Savage, R. and Erdos, C. Individual differences in second language reading outcomes.

Asian Social Science Journal (online), Vol.15 No. 1.

(http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/perpg/fac/genesee/18.pdf) accessed on 20 Nov 2015, at 09.45.

Saville,M. 2006. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sharp,A. 2008. Personality and Second Language Learning. Asian Social Science Journal (online), Vol.4: No.11. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/) accessed on 23 Nov 2015, at 10.15.

content/uploads/2015/03/factors-affecting-students%e2%80%99-speaking.pdf) accessed on 25 Nov 2015, at12.15.

STUDENTS’ SPEAKING PERFORMANCES WITH DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES.