The Relationship between Big-Five Personality Traits, English Language Proficiency Scores on IELTS, and Academic Success of Iranian Foreign Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a potential to supply personality as a psychological factor in terms of the Big-Five Model including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Consciousness, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism. This study was an attempt to examine the relationship between Big-Five personality traits, English language proficiency scores on IELTS, and academic success of Iranian foreign students. The participants of the study included 202 Iranian students (126 males and 76 females) who studied at English speaking universities in different countries including Armenia, Austria, Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the United States of America. The necessary data for this study were collected from participants' first-semester academic reports to measure the degree of academic achievement, academic IELTS certificates to determine the language proficiency of candidates, as well as International Personality Item Pool Big-Five inventory to identify the participants’ personality traits. The data were gathered via different communication tools. The correlational analyses showed that there were significant relationships amongst personality traits and Iranian foreign students’ language proficiency. Neuroticism was the only psychological trait, negatively correlated with both language proficiency and academic success of Iranian foreign students. The study also revealed that there was a high correlation between the scores on IELTS and academic success of Iranian foreign students. Finally, multiple regression analysis indicated the causality among the Big-Five personality traits, English language proficiency score on IELTS, and academic success of Iranian foreign students. These bear testimony to the idea of cognitive approach in that one’s underlying mental processes are in charge of second language learning process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".