Teaching Methods, Personality Types, and Reading Comprehension

  • Andhi Dwi Nugroho Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa
Keywords: teaching methods, personality types, reading comprehension


The primary aim of this study is to provide the empirical and theoritical evidence for  the effect of teaching methods and personality types on reading comprehension. This quassi experimental study involved 100 students under investigation, which were determined randomly through multistage random sampling technique. The results of the research indicate that there is an interaction effect between the teaching methods and personality types on the reading comprehension; there is no significant difference in the reading comprehension between the group of students who learn using Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) and those who learn using Problem Based Instruction (PBI); the students’ reading comprehension having extrovert personality is better than those having introvert personality; the students’ reading comprehension having extrovert personality who learn using CIRC is higher than those who learn using PBI; and the students’ reading comprehension having introvert personality who learn using the CIRC is lower than those who learn using PBI.


Aiken, L.R. (1994). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Badran, A. H. (2001). Extroversion/Introversion and gender in relation to the English pronunciation accuracy of Arabic speaking college students. Egypt: Report-Research Press.
Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Logman.
Cain,S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. New York: Crown Publishers.
Cloninger, S.C. (1993). Theories of Personality. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
De Hoogh, A.H., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P.L. (2005). Linking the Big Five Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). Why problem-based learning? A case study of institutional change in undergraduate education. In B. Duch, S. Groh, & D. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 3-11). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Cook, J.L. & Travers, J.F. 2000. Educational Psychology Effective Teach-ing Effective Learning. USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Grabe, W. (1997). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375-460.
Grant, A.M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024-1030.
Haakonsson, D.D., Burton, R.M., Obel, B., & Lauridsen, J. (2008). How failure to align organizational climate and leadership style affects performance. Management Decision, 46(3), 406-432.
Harris, T.L., & Hodges, R.E. (Eds.) (1995). The Literacy Dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lanyon, R.I. & Goodstein, L.D. (1982). Personality Assess-ment. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Savery, J.R. (2006). Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.