The Relation of Metacognition, Personality, and Foreign Language Performance

Abstract

Metacognition is a significant predictor of learning and academic performance, including foreign-language performance. However, variations in metacognitive competence can be observed due to several factors, potentially including personality. Analytic survey research methods were implemented to examine the relation between metacognition and personality traits and their interaction with foreign-language performance. Data were collected from 244 participants via the Turkish Metacognitive Awareness Inventory, Basic Personality Traits Inventory, and records of foreign language performance grades. Spearman's correlation and multiple linear regression tests were used for data analysis. Results confirmed that Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness explained 20% of metacognitive knowledge, and 16% of metacognitive regulation was attributed to Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience. Compared to other language skills, it was merely reading performance correlating with metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. On the other hand, language use was positively correlated with metacognitive regulation. Regression analyses identified that only personality traits but not metacognition predicted foreign-language performances. Conscientiousness and Extraversion predicted reading performance, and Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were significant predictors of language use performance. These findings may suggest that personality influences foreign language reading performance, language use performance, and metacognition. Therefore, pedagogical implications may reflect individual differences, especially when delivering foreign language instruction or metacognition training modules.

Revisiting Flavell’s Theory of Metacognition for Metacognitive Responsiveness

“…There is also evidence that metacognition can be taught (Cross & Paris, 1988;Takallou, 2011;Tanner, 2012;Zhang & Seepho, 2013), and following such trainings, individuals' awareness, responsibility-taking, and performances improve (Boulware-Gooden et al, 2007;Curwen et al, 2010;Veenman et al, 2006). However, not all individuals can benefit from metacognition training in the same manner for several reasons, for example, proficiency (Ozturk & Senaydın, 2019), extant metacognitive competencies, or personality (Ozturk, 2021). It may also be because metacognitive training where designers impose their judgements about audience's competencies or needs disregard audience's characteristics, or they may lack or ignore a crucial element, the input.…”