Accepted Manuscript

Title: Reflective Thinking, Emotional Intelligence, and

Speaking Ability of EFL Learners: Is there a Relation?

Author: Hassan Soodmand Afshar Masoud Rahimi

PII: S1871-1871(15)30031-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.005
Reference: TSC 324

To appear in: Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: 24-3-2015

Revised date: 20-8-2015
Accepted date: 12-10-2015

Please cite this article as: Soodmand Afshar, Hassan., & Rahimi, Masoud., Reflective
Thinking, Emotional Intelligence, and Speaking Ability of EFL Learners: Is there a
Relation?.Thinking Skills and Creativity http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Reflective Thinking, Emotional Intelligence, and Speaking Ability of EFL Learners: Is there a Relation?

Journal name:Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

Hassan SoodmandAfshar (Corresponding Author), Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English

Language, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Mobile Phone No.: +989188111420

Fax: +98 (081) 38251500

E-mail: hassansoodmand@gmail.com, soodmand@basu.ac.ir

MasoudRahimi, MA in TEFL, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Mobile Phone No.: +989108671289

E-mail: rahimimasoud87@gmail.com

1
Highlights

 Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability were significantly correlated.

 Reflective thinking and emotional intelligence significantly predicted speaking ability.

 All components of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with speaking ability and

reflective thinking.

 Among components of emotional intelligence, only reality testing significantly predicted

speaking ability.

 Among components of emotional intelligence, only self-actualisation significantly predicted

reflective thinking.

2
Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship among reflective thinking, emotional intelligence,

and speaking ability of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. 150

Iranian EFL university students majoring in English language were randomly selected as the

participants of the study who completed the Reflective Thinking Questionnaire (RTQ) developed by

Kember et al., (2000), filled out the Bar-On (1997) emotional intelligence questionnaire and sat an

interview, the results of which were checked against IELTS Speaking Skill Test descriptor. The results

of multiple correlation analyses indicated that there was a significant positive association among: a)

reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking ability, b) all fifteen components of

emotional intelligence and speaking ability, c) all fifteen components of emotional intelligence and

reflective thinking of participants. Furthermore, the results of multiple regression analyses indicated

that both reflective thinking and emotional intelligence significantly predicted speaking ability with

the latter being a stronger predictor.

Key Words: Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, speaking ability, EFL learners

3
1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

A considerable amount of research has been done to explore the relationship between speaking

ability and psychological affective factors in education such as emotional intelligence (e.g., Egloff,

Schmukle, Burns & Schwerdtfeger, 2006; Soodmand Afshar & Rahimi, 2014), anxiety (Beatty &

Friedland, 1990; Tsiplakides & Keramida, 2009), self-esteem and motivation (Shumin, 2002), thinking

skills (Malmir & Shoorcheh, 2012; Roth, 2009; Slobin, 1987; Sun, 2009).

With regard to thinking skills and speaking for instance, Slobin (1987) maintains, “the activity of

thinking takes on a particular quality when it is employed in the activity of speaking” (p.435). Slobin

adds, “In the evanescent of time frame of constructing utterances in discourse, one fits one’s

thoughts into available linguistic forms” (p.435). Roth (2009) also believes that speaking is made

through the process of thinking. Similarly, Vygotsky (1986) holds the view that thinking and speaking

are in dynamic interaction, a process that emerges in the course of development. It could thus be

argued that thinking skills including reflective thinking are likely to be involved in speaking, and that

they might regulate the process of verbal expression in mind before one utters out something.

Speaking ability has also been found to be intriguely but reversely associated with anxiety. For

one, Tsiplakides and Keramida (2009) found that EFL learners’ foreign language speaking anxiety,

which originated from their fear of negative evaluation by their peers and also from low speaking

ability, inhibited them from participating in speaking tasks. Therefore, it might be stated that

emotionally intelligent EFL learners might not get easily anxious to speak in anxiety-provoking

situations because they are able and know how to control their feelings and hence might reveal

better performance in speaking.

Shumin (2002) also argued that sociocultural and affective factors such as emotions, self-esteem,

empathy and motivation could affect EFL learners’ speaking abilities. With regard to the relation

between emotions and speaking, Soodmand Afshar and Rahimi (2014) found EFL learners who

4
perceived, monitored, and appraised their emotions (i.e. were emotionally intelligent), and thought

critically (i.e. were critical thinkers) felt highly competent to speak.

By the same token, Barrow (2015) argues that participatory pedagogy in which learners are

involved in dialogue and hence use their interpersonal skills (as one of the components of emotional

intelligence) promote their interactional skills and speaking ability. Therefore, it might be argued

that social factors such as participation and interaction, which could be regarded as manifestation of

interpersonal skills of emotionally intelligent learners, might enhance their speaking ability.

1.2. Reflective thinking

Reflective thinking and emotional intelligence are assumed to be two major variables in

promoting EFL and English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ speaking ability (Bora, 2012;

Naghdipour & Emeagwali, 2013; Pishghadam, 2009; Stam, 2006). Reflective thinking could be

regarded as an indicator of learners’ success in learning (Brabeck, 1983). Learners who think

reflectively are aware of their learning; they can thus control and assess what they know, what they

need to know, and know how to bridge the gap in their knowledge (Dewey, 1993). It could further

be considered as active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of

knowledge, the grounds that support that knowledge, and also further conclusions to which that

knowledge leads (Dewey, 1993). Furthermore, Loughran (1996) describes reflective thinking in terms

of such notions as claim, problem, hypothesis, reasoning and testing. Schön (1983) conceptualises

reflective thinking as comprising two domains, reflection in action and reflection on action.

Reflection in action is defined as thinking reflectively while an action is being done. Reflection on

action, on the other hand, is described as thinking reflectively after an action has been done.

Therefore, reflective thinking in the present study is defined as active and continuous thinking about

what one is learning. It is also regarded as the process of analysing and making judgments about

what has happened (i.e. thinking about what has been learned in educational contexts) (Dewey,

1933).

5
 Reflective thinking could be regarded as a part of critical thinking process. The difference

between critical thinking and reflective thinking is that critical thinking involves a wider-range of

thinking skills that lead to desirable outcomes; on the other hand, reflective thinking focuses more

on the process of making judgments about what has happened (Dewey, 1933). Kember et al. (2000)

maintain reflective thinking incorporates four steps or procedures including habitual action,

understanding, reflection and critical reflection. The first two steps seem superficial in nature and

deal with automatic performance of an activity (i.e. habitual action) and thinking based on the

knowledge available without any effort to analyse or evaluate that knowledge (i.e. understanding).

The next step (i.e. reflection) consists of appraisal of assumptions and knowledge of how to

approach and solve a problem while critical reflection (i.e. the last step) leads to paramount change

in one’s viewpoint (Mezirow, 1991).

Taking this importance of reflective thinking into account, Dewey (1933) suggests that before

selecting a course of action or employing a belief system, reflective thinking should be considered in

education. Following Dewey, Baron (1981) proposed a general model of reflective thinking which

could serve education. The model comprised problem recognition, enumeration of possibilities,

reasoning, revision, and evaluation, factors of crucial importance which he maintained could provide

goals for education and a description of what a good thinker should do. However, he stated that the

drawback of the model was that it could not provide us with the ways to achieve the goals. He

further added that each parameter might be affected by beliefs, values, emotions, and habits; and

that education for reflective thinking should deal with all these factors. Highlighting the importance

of reflective thinking in education, Mann, Gordon and MacLeod (2009) also maintain that reflective

practice integrated into the learning process, helps students to act and think professionally. These

studies and other similar studies reveal the paramount role thinking skills in general and reflective

thinking in particular might play in education.

Some experts in the field maintain that reflective thinking might influence learning (including

foreign language learning). Ertmer and Newby (1996) for instance, maintain that expert learners
6
reflect on the process of their learning and this reflection could develop their learning. They suggest

that these learners apply reflective thinking skills to evaluate the results of their learning; hence,

awareness of effective learning strategies can be increased. As a result, they can use these strategies

to develop their learning.

Having highlighted the importance of reflection in learning, we should now delve into the studies

which show how learners’ reflective thinking skills are affected by various factors. Ozcinar and

Deryakulu (2011), for instance, conducted a study to investigate the effect of reflection points in the

video-cases and teacher participation in the online discussion groups on students’ reflective thinking

skills. The findings revealed adding reflection points to the video-cases had a significant positive

effect on the students’ reflective thinking. However, teacher participation in the online discussion

groups did not have any significant effect on the students’ reflective thinking. This might provide

support for the premise that, individual factors (e.g., autonomy) might have more influence on

reflective thinking than social factors (e.g., interaction), a line of reasoning supported by Paul and

Elder (2013) who maintain autonomous learners might have more control of their thinking

processes. However, this line of reasoning stands in contrast to the results of Song, Koszalka and

Grabouski (2005) who found that reflective learning environment including “collaboration”

benefited the participants’ reflection most. These contradictory findings call for the need to do

further research on the topic.

The literature of the field also shows that such factors as environment, teacher and scaffolding

tools might increase students’ reflective thinking (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Hua, 2008; Koszalka, Song &

Grabowski, 2001; Lim, 2011). Hmelo-Silver (2004), for instance, argues that students who are

involved in a problem-based learning environment use their new knowledge and reflect on what

they already know to solve a problem; as a result, they enhance their reflective thinking skills.

Similarly, Hua (2008) found that teaching environment, mode of cooperation, and teachers’ beliefs

could affect their reflective thinking. By the same token, Koszalka et al. (2001), investigating the

factors that prompted reflective thinking of 144 middle-school students, found that social activities
7
and problem-based learning within the environment, teacher, and scaffolding tools were deemed by

students as crucial in prompting their reflective thinking with the first group of factors (i.e. social

activities and problem-based learning) having the highest contribution to the enhancement of

students’ reflective thinking. In a similar vein, Lim (2011), exploringing the effect of problem-based

learning (PBL) on students’ reflective thinking, found that PBL promoted reflective thinking,

particularly for the first-year students. However, it remains unclear whether age or developmental

stages influence these factors (i.e. environment, teacher and scaffolding tools) in promoting

reflective thinking (Song, Grabowski, Koszalka & Harkness, 2006). In this regard, Song et al. (2006)

found that middle-school students in their study deemed the learning environment more important

in increasing their reflective thinking, while college students regarded the scaffolding methods more

necessary. As a result, age and developmental stage should be considered before designing

problem-based learning environments which are thought to support reflective thinking. Similarly,

Naghdipour and Emeagwali (2013) found that age and the level of education were two key

determinants of reflective thinking behaviour in students. They also found that assuming

responsibility towards covering content of curriculum, participating in decision-making policies

regarding curriculum, class discussions, as well as feeling responsible for promoting reflective

thinking could enhance reflective thinking in students. Furthermore, they found that inappropriacy

of the class atmosphere, and asking questions that had right answers could inhibit reflective

thinking. Therefore, it could be argued that a multitude of factors might be involved in the process of

reflective thinking which might play a crucial role in its success or failure (Mann, et al., 2009).

1.3. Emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) has also received considerable research interest in the field of

education in general (Allen, MacCann, Matthews & Roberts, 2014; MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner &

Roberts, 2011; Meshkat, 2011; Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke & Wood, 2006) and in foreign

language learning in particular (Pishghadam, 2009; Soodmand Afshar & Rahimi, 2014). However,

before dealing with the studies conducted on emotional intelligence, a brief definition of the
8
concept is deemed essential. Emotional intelligence is defined as the underlying ability to

understand and manage emotions (Barchard & Hakstian, 2004). Furthermore, Mayer and Salovey

(1995) regard emotional intelligence as a set of skills which contribute to the accurate appraisal and

expression of emotions in oneself and in others. Additionally, they consider emotional intelligence as

the regulation of the emotion in self and others, and the use of feelings and emotions to increase

motivation, make and implement plans, and achieve the predetermined goals.

There are various definitions for and different models of EI, the most famous of which is

probably that proposed by Bar-On (2000). He regards EI as the capability which is non-cognitive and

affects a person’s abilities to gain success in the face of environmental pressures. Additionally, he

regards EI as the ability to understand emotions and how they influence interpersonal relationships

(Bar-On, 1997, 2000).

A considerable number of studies link emotional intelligence with academic achievement in

general. MacCann et al. (2011), for instance, found a significant relationship between emotional

intelligence and academic achievement of 159 community college students and 293 middle school

students. Also, Parker et al. (2006), investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence

and academic retention of 1270 university students (368 males and 902 females), found that the

students with higher levels of emotional intelligence persisted more in their studies. Similarly,

Petrides, Frederickson, and Furnham (2004), examining the effect of emotional intelligence on

academic performance and deviant behaviour of 650 British secondary school students, found

emotional intelligence moderated the relationship between cognitive ability and academic

performance. Furthermore, their findings indicated that students with higher levels of emotional

intelligence were less likely to be excluded from school. Thus, it might be stated that by considering

and enhancing students’ emotional intelligence, educational goals might be more successfully

achieved most plausibly because as Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2008) maintain, the individuals who

have a higher level of emotional intelligence can carry out sophisticated information processing, and

use this information as a guide to thinking and behaving which might thus lead to better learning.
9
 However, somehow contrasting the findings of the studies mentioned above, Meshkat (2011)

indicated that there was no significant correlation between emotional intelligence and academic

success of 187 Iranian students of various fields of study at university. The findings further revealed

that the field of study had no significant correlation with emotional intelligence of the participants.

Within the same lines, Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000) found that neither the emotional

intelligence composite factors nor the total emotional intelligence had significant relationship with

academic achievement of 180 students (118 females and 62 males) who were enrolled in

introductory Psychology courses at a Canadian university.

A number of studies can also be found in the literature which link emotional intelligence with

foreign language learning in general and speaking ability in particular. For one, Soodmand Afshar

and Rahimi (2014), investigating the relationship among emotional intelligence, critical thinking and

speaking ability, found emotional intelligence followed by critical thinking, significantly correlated

with and predicted speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Furthermore, they found that all

components of emotional intelligence had significant positive correlation with speaking ability, but

only assertiveness, social responsibility and reality testing significantly predicted speaking ability.

The findings might imply that good speakers are probably more assertive (i.e. confident), oblige

themselves more to serve their societies (i.e. have higher social responsibility), and frequently

evaluate their own abilities (i.e. appraise reality).

Within the same lines, Bora (2012) found that the learners who were highly emotionally

intelligent, were more involved in brain-based activities and speaking mainly due to the fact that

they were equipped with higher levels of self-esteem and social skills and were thus more capable of

interacting with others. Furthermore, Bora found that learners who were not highly emotionally

intelligent did not interact appropriately with the society which led them to be isolated from the

classroom atmosphere and consequently not to participate well in brain-based activities and

speaking.

10
 Also, Khooei (2014) investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence as well as the

relation among its components and oral task fluency, accuracy, and complexity of 17 male and 22

female Iranian EFL learners. The findings revealed there was a significant relationship between

emotional intelligence, and complexity of oral task performance. Furthermore, the results showed

among the five major components of emotional intelligence, only interpersonal skills and stress

management significantly correlated with both fluency and accuracy of oral task performance.

However, intrapersonal skills, adaptability, and general mood components of EI significantly

correlated only with complexity of speaking.

Similarly, Lopes et al. (2004) investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence and

the quality of social interactions including speaking ability of 118 college students in America

adopting Mayer-Salovey- Caruso’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).The findings

indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between the participants’ emotional

intelligence and their quality of interactions with friends.

Pishghadam (2009), in a large-scale study on 508 Iranian EFL learners, also found significant

correlations between emotional quotient (EQ) and listening and speaking in English. Furthermore,

among the five components of emotional intelligence, intrapersonal skills, stress management and

general mood were found to be significantly correlated with listening and speaking ability.

1.4. Relationship between thinking and emotion

Ochsner and Gross (2004) maintain that in order to flexibly adapt one’s ability to nearly every

imaginable circumstances, one should be able to manage and regulate the emotions that are

engendered by the situations he/she encounters. They believe that there are many emotion

regulatory strategies that can help one think positively in difficult situations, remain calm when

confronting danger, or actively control anger. Furthermore, they state that changing the way we

think can lead to a change in the way we feel.

Corroborating Ochsner and Gross’ (2004) stance on the relation between emotions and thinking

skills, Gross (1998), and Gross and Thompson (2007) also maintain that one of the ways to manage
11
emotions is to control the thinking process. Similarly, Roseman and Smith (2009) believe that

thinking is the precursor to feeling; therefore, a change in one’s thinking might lead to a change in

his/her feelings. By the same token, Bolte and Goschke (2010) maintain that thinking is profoundly

influenced by emotions, a reasoning supported by Zajonc (1980) who also argues that thinking and

feeling influence one another. In a similar vein, Meyers (1986), Brookfield (1987) and Paul (1987, all

cited in Moon, 2008) also believe that thoughts and emotions are interdependent.

1.5. Significance of the study and statement of the problem

As the review of the literature in the field indicates, some changes expected to take place in the

learners in order to develop their speaking ability might willingly or unwillingly originate from their

thoughts and emotions (Bora, 2012; Naghdipour & Emeagwali, 2013; Pishghadam, 2009; Vîslă,

Cristea, Szentágotai Tătar & David, 2013). Furthermore, the review of the literature shows that

thoughts and emotions are interrelated (Bolte & Goschke, 2010; Brookfield, 1987; Lutz, 1986;

Meyers, 1986; Ochsner & Gross, 2004; Paul, 1987; Roseman & Smith, 2009). However, little

systematic effort seems to have been made so far to uncover the possible relations among reflective

thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability of EFL learners simultaneously, nor has the

predictive power of these variables for speaking skill been investigated in such EFL contexts as that

of the present study. It is the learners who first learn the second/foreign language and then, as

teachers in the future teach it to other learners. Therefore, it is appealing and reasonable to explore

the relationship among reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and various language skills of EFL

learners in general and their speaking ability in particular which, compared to other language skills,

has generally proved to be more difficult for EFL learners to master because of lack of exposure to

and use of spoken English outside the classroom environment. It also seems justified to find possible

ways to enhance reflective thinking and emotional intelligence of EFL learners if these variables are

found to be positively related to their speaking ability. Considering the issues discussed hitherto, the

present study was thus an attempt to answer the following research questions:

12
1. Is there any significant relationship among EFL learners’ reflective thinking, emotional intelligence,

and their speaking ability?

2. Between reflective thinking and emotional intelligence which one is a stronger predictor of EFL

learners’ speaking ability?

3. Is there any significant relationship among different components of emotional intelligence and

speaking ability of EFL learners?

4. Among the components of emotional intelligence, which one(s) strongly predict EFL learners’

speaking ability?

5. Is there any significant relationship among different components of emotional intelligence and

reflective thinking of EFL learners?

6. Among the components of emotional intelligence, which one(s) strongly predict EFL learners’

reflective thinking?

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

The participants of the present study included 150 Iranian EFL university students (75 males and

75 females). The study was carried out from November 2013 to June 2014in four different

universities in Iran selected randomly from among the universities of the country. The informed

consent of the participants was, of course, obtained before the study began. To control for the

proficiency factor, only the junior and senior students were selected. The participants were all adult

EFL learners above 20.

2.2. Instruments

The instruments adopted in the present study included the reflective thinking skills

questionnaire (Kember et al., 2000), Bar-On, (1997) emotional intelligence questionnaire, and an

interview, the outcome of which was checked against IELTS Speaking Skill Test Descriptor. The

details of these three instruments are presented next.

13
2.2.1. The Reflective Thinking Skills Questionnaire (RTQ)

The reflective thinking skills questionnaire (RTQ) is a five-point Likert scale questionnaire which

contains 16 items developed by Kember et al. (2000). The RTQ includes four areas of habitual action,

understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. It took approximately 10 minutes for the

participants to complete the RTQ.

To ensure the validity of the RTQ, it was pilot tested with 150 EFL university students. The

questionnaire enjoyed Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index of 0.83 which was adequate. Bartlett’s Test

of Sphericity was also calculated to be significant p=.000, meaning that there was correlation

between the items thus allowing us to run factor analysis. In addition, using Cronbach’s Alpha

consistency index, the questionnaire was shown to enjoy a reliability index of 0.83.

2.2.2. The Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

The emotional intelligence questionnaire is a 133-item five-point Likert-scale questionnaire

developed by Bar-On (1997). The items of the questionnaire are in the form of short sentences

which measure five broad areas of such skills as intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress

management, and general mood. These five skills further include 15 factorial components, namely,

emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self- regard, self-actualisation, independence, empathy,

interpersonal relationship, social responsibility, problem solving, reality testing, flexibility, stress

tolerance, impulse control, happiness, and optimism. It took approximately 30 minutes for the

participants to answer this questionnaire.

To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was pilot tested with 150 EFL

university students. The questionnaire showed KMO index of 0.73 which was adequate. That is, the

initial KMO index for the Bar-On’s original 133-item questionnaire was calculated to be 0.66;

however, items 12, 41, 65, 71, 74, 86, 102, and 118, which had low correlation coefficient with other

items in the present study and might not thus be appropriate for EFL contexts, were omitted which

raised KMO index to 0.73. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was also calculated to be significant (p=.000),

14
meaning that there was enough correlation between the items. Furthermore, using Cronbach’s

Alpha consistency index, the questionnaire was indicated to have a high reliability index of 0.98.

2.2.3. The IELTS Speaking Skill Test

The IELTS (International English Language Testing System) Speaking Skill Test is a speaking ability

checklist which measures learners’ speaking ability in the four areas of fluency and coherence (i.e.

how fluently one speaks and how well one links his/her ideas together without long hesitation),

lexical resources (i.e. how accurate, appropriate and varied one’s vocabulary is), grammatical range

and accuracy (i.e. how accurate and varied one’s grammar is), and pronunciation (i.e. how accurately

one uses such features of English pronunciation as intonation, stress and connected speech). The

four criteria are equally weighted. Thus, the IELTS Speaking Band Descriptor was used to give each

participant the deserved mark in these four areas. The participants were given a score from 1 to 9

for each part of the test (i.e. fluency and coherence, lexical resources, grammatical range and

accuracy, and pronunciation as mentioned above). These scores were added together, and then

were divided by four which produced a mean score that acted as their overall band score in

interview. Each participant’s ability was assessed and scored by two trained, experienced debriefed

raters including one of the researchers in an interview which took approximately 10 minutes. The

interview topics were selected from IELTS speaking test topics and the format included a) general

information questions b) topic description and c) topic discussion.

To reduce the subjectivity and bias in the scoring process, inter-rater reliability was calculated

running Kendall’s tau-b, the results of which showed there was acceptable consistency between the

scores of the two raters (r= .785).

15
2.3. Procedures

The RTQ and the Bar-On emotional intelligence questionnaire were administered to the

participants. The participants’ speaking ability was also assessed through a 10-minute interview, the

outcome of which was checked against IELTS Speaking Skill Test Descriptor as mentioned above. The

questions and procedures for completing the questionnaires were elucidated to the participants.

The participants were requested to write down their names on all the three instruments which they

were assured would be kept confidential. Before answering the questions, the participants had time

to go through the items in order to become acquainted with the forms and types of the questions.

One of the researchers was present at the time of administering the questionnaires to resolve any

likely ambiguities. To assess the participants’ speaking ability, an interview was then conducted with

each participant individually and was audio-recorded to be re-scored by the second rater to avoid

the risk of subjectivity in scoring. The interview scores were then correlated with the data obtained

from RTQ and Bar-On questionnaire and the necessary analyses including multiple correlations and

multiple regression analyses were conducted.

3. Results

First, the descriptive statistics of the participants’ scores in speaking ability interview, their

responses to the RTQ and emotional intelligence questionnaire and its various components were

calculated which are summarised in Table 1.

The first research question set out to investigate whether there was any significant relationship

among reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability of EFL learners. Multiple

correlation analyses were run to answer this question, the results of which are presented in Table 2.

As the results in Table 2 show, all the three variables of the study (i.e. reflective thinking,

emotional intelligence and speaking ability) were significantly correlated.

The second research question set out to investigate between reflective thinking and emotional

intelligence which one was a stronger predictor of the participants’ speaking ability. To this end, a

16
multiple regression analysis was conducted, the results of which are summarised in Tables 3, 4 and

5.

First, Table 3 shows the multiple correlation coefficient, and the adjusted and unadjusted

correlation of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence with speaking ability.

As the results in Table 3 indicate, the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using the two

predictors (i.e. reflective thinking and emotional intelligence) simultaneously, is 0.59 (R2= 0.35) and

the adjusted R Square is 0.33. It indicates that 33% of the variance in participants’ speaking ability

can be predicted from the combination of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence.

Next, ANOVA was run to investigate whether the combination of the predictors (i.e. reflective

thinking and emotional intelligence) significantly predicted EFL learners’ speaking ability, the results

of which are presented in Table 4.

As shown in Table 4, the combination of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence predicted

speaking ability of the participants, F (2, 50) = 13.99, p = .00 < .05.

Table 5 shows the amount of contribution of each of the independent variables (reflective

thinking and emotional intelligence) to the dependent one (speaking ability).

As the results of multiple regression analysis in Table 5 indicate, both reflective thinking and

emotional intelligence significantly predicted the participants’ speaking ability, and that the latter

was a stronger predictor of speaking ability of the participants.

The third research question was formulated to address whether there was any significant

relationship among various components of emotional intelligence and speaking ability of EFL

learners. To answer this question, a multiple correlation analysis was run, the results of which are

summarised in Table 6.

As the results in Table 6 indicate, all fifteen components of emotional intelligence significantly

correlated with speaking ability of EFL learners.

17
 To examine which components of emotional intelligence had more predictive power for the

participants’ speaking ability and how other components contributed to this variable, a multiple

regression analysis was run. The results are summarised in Tables 7, 8 and 9.

First, Table 7 indicates the multiple correlation coefficient, and the adjusted and unadjusted

correlation of various components of emotional intelligence with speaking ability.

As the results in Table 7 show, the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all the predictors

(i.e. all components of emotional intelligence) simultaneously, is 0.70 (R2= 0.49) and the adjusted R

Square is 0.28. It indicates that 28% of the variance in learners’ speaking ability could be predicted

from various components of emotional intelligence. ANOVA results in Table 8 substantiate the

significance of the multiple regression.

As shown in Table 8, the combination of the predictors (i.e. various components of emotional

intelligence) significantly predicted EFL learners’ speaking ability, F (15, 37) = 2.37, p = .01 < .05.

Table 9 shows the amount of contribution of each of the components of emotional intelligence

to the speaking ability of the participants.

As the results in Table 9 indicate, among various components of emotional intelligence, only

reality testing significantly predicted the learners’ speaking ability.

The fifth research question examined the relationship among various components of emotional

intelligence and reflective thinking of EFL learners. To answer this research question, multiple

correlation analyses were run, the results of which are presented in Table 10.

As the results in Table 10 indicate, all fifteen components of emotional intelligence significantly

correlated with reflective thinking of EFL learners.

To investigate which components of emotional intelligence had stronger predictive power for

the participants’ reflective thinking and how other components contributed to this variable, a

multiple regression analysis was run, the results of which are summarised in Tables 11, 12 and 13.

18
 First, Table 11 indicates the multiple correlation coefficient, and the adjusted and unadjusted

correlation of various components of emotional intelligence with reflective thinking.

As the results in Table 11 show, the multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all the predictors

(i.e. all components of emotional intelligence) simultaneously, is 0.59 (R2= 0.34) and the adjusted R

square is 0.27. It indicates that 27% of the variance in participants’ reflective thinking could be

predicted from various components of emotional intelligence. ANOVA results in Table 12

corroborate the significance of the multiple regression.

As shown in Table 12, the combination of the predictors (i.e. various components of emotional

intelligence) significantly predicted participants’ reflective thinking, F (15, 134) = 4.77, p = .00 < .05.

Table 13 shows the amount of contribution of each of the components of emotional intelligence

to reflective thinking of the participants.

As the results of multiple regression in Table 13 show, among various components of emotional

intelligence, only self-actualisation significantly predicted participants’ reflective thinking.

4. Discussion

The first research question of the study aimed at investigating the relationship between EFL

learners’ reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability. Firstly, the results revealed

that there was a statistically significant correlation between EFL learners’ reflective thinking and

their speaking ability. This relationship can be two-sided. On the one hand, as the findings of some

studies (e.g., Naghdipour & Emeagwail, 2013) reveal, class discussions (i.e. speaking) promote

reflective thinking in students. On the other hand, as the findings of some other studies like that of

Sun (2009) indicate, EFL speaking could be promoted by thinking and expressing thoughts (i.e.

reflection).

Stam (2006) maintains thinking can lead to grammatically correct and fluent L2 speech, a

reasoning in line with Slobin’s (1987) argument that in the process of communication, one matches

19
his/her thoughts into his/her own linguistic forms, a point of paramount importance which shows

the interdependence of thinking and speaking. That is, the more deeply and reflectively one thinks,

the better spoken output he/she might be expected to produce, an argument also supported by

Roth (2009) who believes that the whole process of learning takes place through a dynamic mutual

interaction between thinking and speaking.

The first research question of the study additionally investigated the relationship between EFL

learners’ emotional intelligence and their speaking ability. The results revealed that there was a

statistically significant correlation between the two variables. The findings of the study in this

respect are in line with the results of Pishghadam (2009) and Soodmand Afshar and Rahimi (2014)

who also found emotional intelligence and speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners were significantly

positively correlated. The findings of the study are also harmonious with those of Bora (2012) who

found that learners with high level of emotional intelligence were engaged more in speaking

activities, a result also supported by the findings of Goleman (1998), Mayer, Salovey and Caruso

(2004), and Weisinger (1998) who all maintain emotional intelligence results in better performance

in communication.

Brown (1980) points out that some learners have problems when speaking a foreign language

especially in public due to the fact that speaking is anxiety-provoking in nature, which might lead to

failure in communicating with the interlocutors, especially with native speakers. However, EFL

learners with higher levels of emotional intelligence tend to be more tolerant of stress and anxiety

(i.e. stress tolerance) and more flexible in the face of ambiguity, pressure and anxiety (i.e.

flexibility), two crucial components of emotional intelligence which could eventually lead to better

performance in speaking in general and speaking in a foreign language in particular. That is, it could

be argued that learners who are able to understand, monitor, and regulate their emotions (i.e. are

emotionally intelligent) in learning English might be thought to be successful language learners

especially in acquiring speaking ability most plausibly because they have higher interpersonal skills

(which is one of the major components of EI) and are more able to gain success in the face of
20
environmental pressures (Bar-On, 1997, 2000) due to possessing such EI capabilities as stress

tolerance and impulse control especially considering the premise that acquiring oral-aural language

skills can be anxiety-provoking in nature. Therefore, those learners who are more able to manage

stressful situations and control their emotions, anxiety, etc. might eventually turn out to be more

successful learners of aural-oral language skills including speaking. Learners with low level of

emotional intelligence on the other hand, might not possess proper interpersonal skills and thus

might not have appropriate relations with the society; as a result, they feel isolated from the

classroom environment and deny participation in speaking activities as Bora (2012) rightly maintains.

Our results in this respect are also supported by the findings of Egloff et al. (2006) who also found

that emotion regulation processes (e.g., impulse control) were connected with success in speaking of

university students of Psychology. These findings support Vygotsky’s (1986) reasoning that thinking

and speaking have a dynamic association, a process which emerges in the course of development.

The first research question of the study further investigated the relationship between EFL

learners’ emotional intelligence and reflective thinking. The results indicated that there was a

statistically significant positive correlation between EFL learners’ emotional intelligence and their

reflective thinking. That is, as Bolte and Goschke (2010), Brookfield (1987), Lutz (1986), Meyers

(1986), Ochsner and Gross (2004), Paul (1987) and Roseman and Smith (2009) argue, emotions and

thoughts might be interrelated. As a result, the higher the level of emotional intelligence in an

individual, the higher his/her level of reflective thinking and vice versa. In other words, learners

cannot be considered as emotionless thinkers. Emotions and thought should thus be regarded as

inseparable in order to boost learners’ creative thinking (Newton, 2013) which is thought to be

related to success in learning.

Although affect (feeling) and cognition (thinking) are monitored by partly independent

mechanisms, they can affect one another in various ways (Zajonc, 1980). That is, as mentioned

earlier in 1.4, there seems to be an association of some sort between thinking and feeling, a premise

21
supported by the results of Russ and Schafer (2006) who found a significant positive correlation

between feeling and thinking creatively.

The possibility of the existence of a relationship between thinking and feeling is further

corroborated by the results of Dewey and Bento (2009) who found learners’ thinking skills had a

significant positive effect on their social and emotional development.

Based on the results of the first research question it might thus be stated that EFL learners who:

a) think actively and continuously of the issues, analyse and make judgments about what has

happened (i.e. think reflectively) might be better EFL speakers, b) EFL learners who are able to

understand and manage their own emotions and those of others (i.e. are emotionally intelligent)

could be better EFL speakers, and c) EFL learners who think reflectively might better understand and

manage their own emotions and those of others. It might thus be suggested that EFL learners’

reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability are interrelated.

The findings of the study also indicated that between reflective thinking and emotional

intelligence, the latter was a stronger predictor of EFL learners’ speaking ability. In a similar vein,

Soodmand Afshar and Rahimi (2014) found that emotional intelligence, compared with critical

thinking, was a stronger predictor of Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability. As a result, emotional

intelligence is suggested to be prioritised to help EFL learners to enhance their speaking ability.

With regard to the third research question, the results indicated that there were statistically

significant positive correlations among EFL learners’ various components of emotional intelligence

(i.e. emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self- actualisation, independence,

empathy, interpersonal relationship, social responsibility, problem solving, reality testing, flexibility,

stress tolerance, impulse control, happiness, and optimism) and their speaking ability. Our results in

this respect could lend support to the findings of Riemer (2002) who also found that enhancement

of learners’ communication skills was related to various elements of their emotional intelligence.

With respect to the fourth research question, the results indicated that among various

components of emotional intelligence, only reality testing could significantly predict the EFL
22
learners’ speaking ability. The findings of the study in this regard are partially in line with those of

Soodmand Afshar and Rahimi (2014) who indicated that reality testing, along with social

responsibility and assertiveness significantly predicted speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners.

Therefore, reality testing might be recommended to be highlighted among the components of

emotional intelligence by teachers to help EFL learners enhance their ability in finding out the

relationship between what is emotionally experienced and what objectively exists (i.e. reality

testing), if they want to increase their speaking ability.

The results of the fifth research question of the study indicated that there were statistically

significant positive correlations among EFL learners’ various components of emotional intelligence

and their reflective thinking. This might be due to the fact that some components of EI like

emotional self-awareness, self-actualisation and especially problem-solving necessitate profound

thinking and reflection in and on action (i.e. reflective thinking) to materialise.

The results of the sixth research question of the study indicated that among various components

of emotional intelligence, only self-actualisation could significantly predict EFL learners’ reflective

thinking. Therefore, it is highly suggested for teachers to help EFL learners to become aware of their

own potential capabilities and what they can do (i.e. self- actualisation) if they want to increase their

reflective thinking.

5. Conclusion and implications of the study

Statistically significant positive correlations were found among EFL learners’ reflective thinking,

emotional intelligence, and their speaking ability. Furthermore, both reflective thinking and

emotional intelligence were found to predict EFL learners’ speaking ability. However, emotional

intelligence came to be a stronger predictor of EFL learners’ speaking ability. The findings also

showed all fifteen components of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with EFL learners’

speaking ability, but only reality testing significantly predicted their speaking ability. The findings

further revealed all fifteen components of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with EFL

learners’ reflective thinking, but only self-actualisation strongly predicted their reflective thinking.
23
 To sum up, it could be argued that thinking and feeling might be reciprocally related. This might

be demonstrated in reality by the fact that when one cannot tolerate stress and/or when one gets

anxious, he/she cannot manage his thinking process well. On the other hand, when one cannot think

rationally and reflectively or is hesitant about the phenomena, he/she might not be able to control

his emotions and anxiety well. Thus, this process might lead to a vicious circle, the external

manifestation of which might be poor, improper and ill-organized spoken output. The findings of the

study might thus show that reflective thinking skills and emotional intelligence of EFL learners should

be flourished and enhanced if we expect to have better EFL speakers.

A point worth mentioning here is that, since the original English version of Bar-On’s (1997) 133-

item emotional intelligence questionnaire had not already been systematically revalidated in the

context of the present study, the researchers validated the questionnaire through pilot-testing,

expert judgement and factor analysis. As a result, eight items were omitted and the questionnaire

was reduced to 125 items which might reveal the context-sensitive nature of such affective-factor-

measuring instruments as Bar-On’s Emotional Intelligence Inventory. The present questionnaire can

thus be adopted by other EFL researchers interested in the topic of emotional intelligence especially

in Asian EFL contexts in general and in Iran in particular.

The study might also yield some fruitful implications. First, the results of the present study

might prove useful for speaking programme developers and syllabus designers. They can develop

and design programmes and syllabi which incorporate reflective thinking and emotional intelligence,

two important variables found in the present study to predict EFL learners’ speaking ability. EFL

teachers might also find the results of the present study fruitful. They can encourage and inject the

tenets of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence in their speaking class practices and

procedures to enhance EFL learners’ speaking ability and to further facilitate the process of English

language learning. EFL students are also suggested to employ reflective thinking skills and emotional

intelligence components which might help improve their speaking ability.

24
6. References

Allen, V., MacCann, C., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence in education.

From pop to emerging science. In R. Pekrun & L. L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International

handbook of emotions in education (pp. 162-182). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Barchard, K., & Hakstian, A. R. (2004). The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence

abilities: Basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality

variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement 64(3), 437-462.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence.

Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence. Insights from the emotional quotient inventory

(EQ-I). In R. Bar-On and J. D. Parker (Eds.). The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363–

388). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Baron, J. (1981). Reflective thinking as a goal of education. Intelligence, 5(4), 291-309.

Barrow, W. (2015). ‘I think she’s learnt how to sort of let the class speak’: Children’s perspectives on

Philosophy for Children as participatory pedagogy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 76-87.

Beatty, M. J., & Friedland, M. H. (1990). Public speaking state anxiety as a function of selected

situational and predispositional variables. Communication Education, 39(2), 142-147.

Bolte, A. & Goschke, T. (2010). Thinking and emotion: Affective modulation of cognitive processing

modes. In B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. von Müller (Eds.), on thinking, Vol. II: Towards a theory

of thinking (S. 261–277). Parmenides Book Series. Springer Verlag: Heidelberg.

Bora, F, D. (2012). The impact of emotional intelligence on developing speaking skills: From brain-

based perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences. 46, 2094– 2098.

Brabeck, M. M. (1983). Critical thinking skills and reflective judgment development: Redefining the

aims of higher education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 23-34.

25
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we Think, revised ed. D.C. Heath, Boston.

Dewey, J., & Bento, J. (2009). Activating children’s thinking skills (ACTS): The effects of an infusion

approach to teaching thinking in primary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

79(2), 329-351.

Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Burns, L. R., & Schwerdtfeger, A. (2006). Spontaneous emotion regulation

during evaluated speaking tasks: Associations with negative affect, anxiety expression,

memory, and physiological responding. Emotion, 6, 356−366.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self-regulated, and reflective.

Instructional science, 24(1), 1-24.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantman press.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences

for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,

224–237.

Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational

psychology review, 16(3), 235-266.

Hua, L. (2008). Assessing EFL teachers’ reflective thinking: A case study of two in-service secondary

teachers. Trends in Applied Sciences Research, 3(1), 36-44.

26
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Yeung, E. (2000).

Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381-395.

Khooei, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence and its relation to oral task fluency, accuracy, and

complexity among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and

Applied Linguistics World, 6(2), 76-93.

Koszalka, T. A., Song, H.-D., & Grabowski, B. (2001). Examining learning environmental design issues

for prompting reflective thinking in web-enhanced PBL. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED464592).

Lim, L. A. Y. L. (2011). A comparison of students’ reflective thinking across different years in a

problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 39(2), 171-188.

Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional

intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1018-

1034.

Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through

Modelling. London: Falmer Press.

Lutz, C. (1986). Emotion, thought, and estrangement: Emotion as a cultural category. Cultural

anthropology, 1(3), 287-309.

MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the relationship

between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 36(1), 60-70.

27
Malmir, A., & Shoorcheh, S. (2012). An investigation of the impact of teaching critical thinking on the

Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skill. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 608-

617.

Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions

education: a systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595-621.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of

feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 197-208.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

(MSCEIT): item booklet. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS Publishers.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and

implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?

American Psychologist, 63, 503−517.

Meshkat, M. (2011). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic success. Journal

of Technology of Education, 5(3), 201-204.

Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Brass.

Moon, J. (2008). Critical thinking: An exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge. Multi-

Health Systems, Inc.

Naghdipour, B., & Emeagwali, O, L. (2013). Assessing the level of reflective thinking in ELT students.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 83, 266 – 271.

Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional

intelligence. Personality and Individual differences, 29(6), 1005-1016.

28
Newton, D. P. (2013). Moods, emotions and creative thinking: A framework for teaching. Thinking

skills and creativity, 8, 34-44.

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Thinking makes it so: A social cognitive neuroscience approach

to emotion regulation. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 229-

255.

Ozcinar, H., & Deryakulu, D. (2011). The effects of reflection points in video-cases and teacher

participation in online discussion groups on reflective thinking. Journal of Education, 40, 321-

331.

Parker, J. D., Hogan, M. J., Eastabrook, J. M., Oke, A., & Wood, L. M. (2006). Emotional intelligence

and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university.

Personality and Individual differences, 41(7), 1329-1336.

Paul, R. (1987). Dialogical thinking–critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge

and passions. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice

(pp. 127–148). New York: F. W. Freeman.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal

life. Pearson Education.

Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in

academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and individual

differences, 36(2), 277-293.

Pishghadam, R. (2009). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence

and foreign language learning. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 6, 31-41.

Riemer, M. J. (2002). English and communication skills for the global engineer. Global Journal of

Engineering Education, 6(1), 91-100.

29
Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2009). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties,

controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in

emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roth, W. M. (2009). Vygotsky’s dynamic conception of the thinking–speaking relationship.

Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(1), 49-60.

Russ, S. W., & Schafer, E. D. (2006). Affect in fantasy play, emotion in memories, and divergent

thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 347-354.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, London: Temple

Smith.

Shumin, K. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students’ speaking abilities.

Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice, 12, 204-211.

Slobin, D. I. (1987). Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 435-

445.

Song, H. D., Grabowski, B. L., Koszalka, T. A., & Harkness, W. L. (2006). Patterns of instructional-

design factors prompting reflective thinking in middle-school and college level problem-

based learning environments. Instructional Science, 34(1), 63-87.

Song, H. D., Koszalka, T. A., Grabowski, B. (2005). Exploring instructional design factors prompting

reflective thinking in young adolescents. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,

31(2): 49-68.

Soodmand Afshar, H., & Rahimi, M. (2014). The relationship among emotional intelligence, critical

thinking, and speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English Language and

Literature Society of Iran (TELLSI), 8(1), 31-59.

30
Stam, G. (2006). Thinking for speaking about motion: L1 and L2 speech and gesture. International

Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(2). 143–169.

Sun, W. (2009). Improving speaking by listening cultivating English thinking and expression--Probe

into the teaching of business English listening. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 56-59.

Tsiplakides, I., & Keramida, A. (2009). Helping students overcome foreign language speaking anxiety

in the English classroom: Theoretical issues and practical recommendations. International

Education Studies, 2(4), 39-44.

Vîslă, A., Cristea, I. A, L., Szentágotai Tătar, A., & David, D. (2013). Core beliefs, automatic thoughts

and response expectancies in predicting public speaking anxiety. Personality and individual

differences, 55(7), 856-859.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional intelligence at work: The untapped edge for success. New York:

Jossey-Bass.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,

35(2), 151-175.

31
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the participants’ scores in speaking ability interview, their
responses to RTQ, and emotional intelligence questionnaire, and its various components
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Speaking ability interview 150 3.50 9.00 6.12 1.24
Reflective thinking 150 1.43 4.50 3.22 .67
Emotional intelligence 150 1.51 4.58 3.31 .69
Self-regard 150 1.33 4.78 3.30 .77
Emotional self-awareness 150 1.50 5.00 3.38 .79
Assertiveness 150 1.14 5.00 3.33 .80
Independence 150 1.43 5.00 3.37 .83
Self-actualisation 150 1.33 4.78 3.37 .79
Empathy 150 1.13 5.00 3.41 .83
Social responsibility 150 1.40 4.70 3.38 .77
Interpersonal-relationship 150 1.36 4.82 3.37 .77
Reality testing 150 1.30 4.80 3.27 .77
Flexibility 150 1.14 5.00 3.28 .82
Problem solving 150 1.57 5.00 3.37 .83
Stress tolerance 150 1.44 4.89 3.21 .82
Impulse control 150 1.29 4.86 3.31 .83
Optimism 150 1.50 4.88 3.28 .77
Happiness 150 1.56 4.89 3.44 .79

32
 Table 2 Multiple correlations, investigating the relationship among reflective thinking, emotional

intelligence and speaking ability of EFL learners

Reflective Emotional Speaking ability

thinking intelligence

Pearson Correlation 1 .52 .49

Reflective
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00
thinking
N 150 150 150

Pearson Correlation .52 1 .53

Emotional
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00
intelligence
N 150 150 150

Pearson Correlation .49 .53 1

Speaking ability Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00

N 150 150 150

Table 3 Model summary, investigating the multiple correlation coefficient, the adjusted, and

unadjusted R of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence with speaking ability

R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

.59 .35 .33 1.01

33
Table 4 ANOVA, investigating the prediction of the combination of reflective thinking and

emotional intelligence of the participants’ speaking ability

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 28.96 2 14.48 13.99 .00

Residual 51.73 50 1.03

Total 80.70 52

Table 5 Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of reflective thinking and

emotional intelligence for the participants’ speaking ability

Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 2.55 .69 3.67 .00

Reflective thinking .50 .21 .30 2.31 .02

Emotional
.57 .19 .38 2.93 .00
intelligence

34
Table 6 Multiple correlations, investigating the relationship among various components of emotional

intelligence and speaking ability

Speaking Ability Sig.

Self-regard .50 .00

Emotional self-awareness .44 .00

Assertiveness .47 .00

Independence .48 .00

Self-actualisation .50 .00

Empathy .45 .00

Social responsibility .43 .00

Interpersonal-relationship .52 .00

Reality testing .60 .00

Flexibility .50 .00

Problem solving .42 .00

Stress tolerance .45 .00

Impulse control .52 .00

Optimism .50 .00

Happiness .46 .00

35
Table 7 Model summary, investigating the multiple correlation coefficient, the adjusted, and

unadjusted R of various components of emotional intelligence with the participants’ speaking ability

R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

.70 .49 .28 1.05

Table 8 ANOVA, investigating the prediction of the combination of various components of

emotional intelligence for the participants’ speaking ability

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 39.62 15 2.64 2.37 .01

Residual 41.07 37 1.11

Total 80.70 52

36
Table 9 Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of various components of
emotional intelligence for the participants’ speaking ability
Unstandardised Standardised
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 3.56 .68 5.22 .00
Self-regard -.14 .51 -.10 -.27 .78
Emotional self-awareness -.57 .62 -.40 -.91 .36
Assertiveness .21 .42 .16 .51 .61
Independence .14 .39 .10 .36 .71
Self-actualisation -.02 .52 -.01 -.04 .96
Empathy -.05 .51 -.04 -.10 .91
Social responsibility -.34 .56 -.24 -.60 .55
Interpersonal-relationship .54 .51 .40 1.06 .29
Reality testing 1.55 .53 1.12 2.91 .00
Flexibility -.28 .42 -.21 -.68 .49
Problem solving -.51 .41 -.39 -1.22 .22
Stress tolerance -.55 .45 -.42 -1.20 .23
Impulse control .45 .38 .34 1.17 .24
Optimism .34 .60 .25 .56 .57
Happiness .00 .44 .00 .01 .99

37
Table 10 Multiple correlations, investigating the relationship among various components of

emotional intelligence and reflective thinking

Reflective Thinking Sig.

Self-regard .44 .00

Emotional self-awareness .49 .00

Assertiveness .48 .00

Independence .44 .00

Self-actualisation .55 .00

Empathy .43 .00

Social responsibility .46 .00

Interpersonal-relationship .45 .00

Reality testing .48 .00

Flexibility .45 .00

Problem solving .44 .00

Stress tolerance .41 .00

Impulse control .39 .00

Optimism .52 .00

Happiness .37 .00

38
Table 11 Model summary, investigating the multiple correlation coefficient, the adjusted, and

unadjusted R of various components of emotional intelligence with the participants’ reflective

thinking

R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

.59 .34 .27 .57

Table 12 ANOVA, investigating the prediction of the combination of various components of

emotional intelligence of the participants’ reflective thinking

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 23.90 15 1.59 4.77 .00

Residual 44.72 134 .33

Total 68.62 149

39
Table 13 Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of various components of

emotional intelligence for the participants’ reflective thinking

Model Unstandardised Standardised

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 1.51 .23 6.48 .00

Self-regard -.08 .15 -.09 -.50 .61

Emotional self-awareness -.00 .13 -.00 -.04 .96

Assertiveness .12 .12 .14 .95 .34

Independence -.00 .10 -.00 -.04 .96

Self-actualisation .31 .13 .37 2.34 .02

Empathy -.11 .14 -.14 -.78 .43

Social responsibility .08 .15 .09 .53 .59

Interpersonal-relationship -.11 .15 -.13 -.72 .46

Reality testing .17 .15 .19 1.15 .25

Flexibility .05 .10 .06 .51 .61

Problem solving .01 .12 .01 .10 .91

Stress tolerance -.22 .13 -.27 -1.62 .10

Impulse control -.02 .09 -.02 -.23 .81

Optimism .30 .17 .34 1.78 .07

Happiness .01 .13 .01 .11 .91

40
Appendix C: IELTS Speaking Skill Test

Name Fluency and Lexical Grammatical Pronunciation TOTAL 9

coherence resource range and

accuracy

10

41
 Appendix D: IELTS Speaking Band Descriptors

Band Fluency andLexical Resource Grammatical range andPronunciation

Coherence accuracy Resource

9 ƒ speaks fluently withƒ uses vocabulary with full ƒ uses a full range ƒ uses a full range of

only rare flexibility and of structures pronunciation features

repetition or self- precision in all topics naturally andwith precision and subtlety

correction; any ƒ uses idiomatic language appropriately ƒ sustains flexible use of

hesitation is naturally and accurately ƒ produces features throughout

content- related consistently accurate ƒ is effortless to understand

8 ƒ speaks fluently withƒ uses a wide vocabularyƒ uses a wide range ofƒ uses a wide range of

only resource structures pronunciation

occasional readily and flexibly to flexibly features

repetition or self- convey precise meaning ƒ produces a majority ƒ sustains flexible use of

correction; ƒ uses less common andof error-free features, with only

7 ƒ speaks at length ƒ uses vocabulary ƒ uses a range ofƒ shows all the positive

without resource flexibly to complex features of Band 6

noticeable effort discuss a variety of topics structures with someand some, but not all,

or loss of ƒ uses some less common flexibility of the positive features

coherence and idiomatic vocabulary ƒ frequently of Band 8

ƒ may demonstrate and shows some produces error-free

42
6 ƒ is willing to speak atƒ has a wide enoughƒ uses a mix of simpleƒ uses a range of

length, vocabulary to and pronunciation features

though may lose discuss topics at complex with mixed control

coherence at times length and make structures, but ƒ shows some effective use

due to occasional meaning clear in spite with limited of features but this is not

repetition, self- of inappropriacies flexibility sustained

IELTS Speaking Band Descriptors

5 ƒ usually maintainsƒ manages to talk aboutƒ produces basic ƒ shows all the positive

flow of familiar and sentence forms features of Band 4

speech but uses unfamiliar topics but with reasonableand some, but not all,

repetition, self- uses vocabulary with accuracy of the positive features

correction and/or limited flexibility ƒ uses a limited rangeof Band 6

slow speech to ƒ attempts to use of more

keep going paraphrase but with complex structures,

4 ƒ cannot respondƒ is able to talk aboutƒ produces basicƒ uses a limited range of

without familiar topics but sentence forms pronunciation

noticeable pauses can only convey basic and some correct features

and may speak meaning on unfamiliar simple sentences ƒ attempts to control

slowly, with topics and makes but subordinate features but lapses are
3 ƒ speaks with ƒ uses simple vocabulary toƒ attempts basicƒ shows some of the features

long pauses convey sentence forms of Band 2 and

ƒ has limited personal information but with limited some, but not all, of the

ability to link ƒ has insufficient success, or relies on positive features of

simple vocabulary for less apparently Band 4

43
2 ƒ pauses lengthily ƒ only produces ƒ cannot produce basicƒ speech is often unintelligible

before most words isolated words or sentence

1 ƒ no communication

possible
0 ƒ does not attend

44