Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking

ability of EFL learners: Is there a relation?
Hassan Soodmand Afshar ∗ , Masoud Rahimi
Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study investigated the relationship among reflective thinking, emotional intel-
Received 24 March 2015 ligence, and speaking ability of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. 150 Iranian
Received in revised form 20 August 2015 EFL university students majoring in English language were randomly selected as the partic-
Accepted 12 October 2015
ipants of the study who completed the reflective thinking questionnaire (RTQ) developed
Available online 26 October 2015
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
Keywords:
descriptor. The results of multiple correlation analyses indicated that there was a significant
Reflective thinking
positive association among: (a) reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking
Emotional intelligence
Speaking ability ability, (b) all fifteen components of emotional intelligence and speaking ability, (c) all
EFL learners fifteen components of emotional intelligence and reflective thinking of participants. Fur-
thermore, 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.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

A considerable amount of research has been done to explore the relationship between speaking ability and such psy-
chological affective factors in education 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), and 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.

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +98 81 38251500.

E-mail addresses: hassansoodmand@gmail.com, soodmand@basu.ac.ir (H. Soodmand Afshar), rahimimasoud87@gmail.com (M. Rahimi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.005
1871-1871/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
98 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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 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).
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, understand-
ing, 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 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 sig-
nificant 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
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 99

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 knowl-
edge 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 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 think-
ing (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 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.
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.
100 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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, sig-
nificantly 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 responsi-
bility 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.
Also, Khooei (2014) investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence as well as the relation among its com-
ponents 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 man-
agement 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 inter-
actions including speaking ability of 118 college students in America adopting Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso et al. (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 intel-
ligence, intrapersonal skills, stress management and general mood were found to be significantly correlated with listening
and speaking ability.

1.4. Relationship between thinking and feeling

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 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) (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:
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 101

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.

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 min 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 intrap-
ersonal, 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, inter-
personal relationship, social responsibility, problem solving, reality testing, flexibility, stress tolerance, impulse control,
happiness, and optimism. It took approximately 30 min 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), 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 mea-
sures 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
102 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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

Table 2
Multiple correlations, investigating the relationship among reflective thinking, emotional intelligence and speaking ability of EFL learners.

Reflective thinking Emotional intelligence Speaking ability

Reflective thinking Pearson Correlation 1 .52 .49

Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00
N 150 150 150
Emotional intelligence Pearson Correlation .52 1 .53
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00
N 150 150 150
Speaking ability Pearson Correlation .49 .53 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .00
N 150 150 150

was assessed and scored by two trained, experienced debriefed raters including one of the researchers in an interview which
took approximately 10 min. 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).

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-min 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.
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 103

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

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 51.73 148 1.03
Total 80.70 150

Table 5
Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of reflective thinking and emotional intelligence for the participants’ speaking ability.

Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.55 .69 3.67 .00

Reflective thinking .50 .21 .30 2.31 .02
Emotional intelligence .57 .19 .38 2.93 .00

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

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 multiple regression analysis was conducted, the
results of which are summarised in Tables 3–5 .
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.
104 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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 41.07 135 1.11
Total 80.70 150

Table 9
Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of various components of emotional intelligence for the participants’ speaking ability.

Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients t Sig.

B Std. error Beta

(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

As the results in Table 6 indicate, all fifteen components of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with speaking
ability of EFL learners.
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 7–9 .
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 11–13.
First, Table 11 indicates the multiple correlation coefficient, and the adjusted and unadjusted correlation of various
components of emotional intelligence with reflective thinking.
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 105

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

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

Table 13
Multiple regression, investigating the predictive power of various components of emotional intelligence for the participants’ reflective thinking.

Model Unstandardised coefficients Standardised coefficients t Sig.

B Std. error Beta

(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

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.
106 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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 (e.g., 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 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 intel-
ligence 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 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 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
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 107

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 cor-
relations 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 intelli-
gence, only reality testing could significantly predict the EFL 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 teach-
ers 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 learn-
ers’ 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 com-
ponents of emotional intelligence significantly correlated with EFL learners’ reflective thinking, but only self-actualisation
strongly predicted their reflective thinking.
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 intel-
ligence 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.
108 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

Appendix A.

Table A1.

Table A1
IELTS speaking skill test.

Name Fluency and coherence Lexical resource Grammatical range and accuracy Pronunciation Total 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Appendix B.

IELTS Speaking Band Descriptors (Table B1).

Table B1
IELTS speaking band descriptors.

Band Fluency and coherence Lexical resource Grammatical range and Pronunciation
accuracy

9 f speaks fluently with only rare
repetition or self-correction;
any hesitation is content-
related rather than to find
words or grammar
f speaks coherently with fully
appropriate cohesive features
f develops topics fully and
appropriately
8 f speaks fluently with only
occasional repetition or self-
correction; hesitation is usually
content-related and only rarely
to search for language
f develops topics coherently
and appropriately
7 f speaks at length without
noticeable effort or loss of
coherence
f may demonstrate language-
related hesitation at times, or
some repetition and/or self-
correction
f uses a range of connectives
and discourse markers with
some flexibility
6 f is willing to speak at length,
f uses vocabulary with full
flexibility and
precision in all topics
f uses idiomatic language
naturally and accurately
f uses a wide vocabulary
resource
readily and flexibly to convey
precise meaning
f uses less common and
idiomatic
vocabulary skilfully, with
occasional inaccuracies
f uses paraphrase effectively as
required
f uses vocabulary resource
flexibly to
discuss a variety of topics
f uses some less common and
idiomatic vocabulary and
shows some
awareness of style and
collocation,
with some inappropriate
choices
f uses paraphrase effectively
f has a wide enough
vocabulary to
f uses a full range of structures
naturally and appropriately
f produces consistently
accurate structures apart from
‘slips’
characteristic of native speaker
speech
f uses a wide range of
structures
flexibly
f produces a majority of
error-free sentences with only
very
occasional inappropriacies or
basic/non-systematic errors
f uses a range of complex
structures with some flexibility
f frequently produces
error-free sentences, though
some
grammatical mistakes persist
f uses a mix of simple and
f uses a full range of
pronunciation features
with precision and subtlety
f sustains flexible use of
features throughout
f is effortless to understand
f uses a wide range of
pronunciation
features
f sustains flexible use of
features, with only occasional
lapses
f is easy to understand
throughout; L1 accent has
minimal effect on intelligibility
f shows all the positive
features of Band 6
and some, but not all, of the
positive features of Band 8
f uses a range of pronunciation
features
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 109

Table B1 (Continued)

Band Fluency and coherence Lexical resource Grammatical range and Pronunciation
accuracy

though may lose coherence at
times due to occasional
repetition, self-correction or
hesitation
f uses a range of connectives
and discourse markers but not
always appropriately
5 f usually maintains flow of
speech but uses repetition,
self-correction and/or slow
speech to keep going
f may over-use certain
connectives and discourse
markers
f produces simple speech
fluently, but more complex
communication causes fluency
problems
discuss topics at length and
make meaning clear in spite of
inappropriacies
f generally paraphrases
successfully
f manages to talk about
familiar and
unfamiliar topics but uses
vocabulary with limited
flexibility
f attempts to use paraphrase
but with mixed success
complex structures, but with
limited flexibility
f may make frequent mistakes
with complex structures,
though
these rarely cause
comprehension problems
f produces basic sentence
forms
with reasonable accuracy
f uses a limited range of more
complex structures, but these
usually contain errors and may
cause some comprehension
problems
with mixed control
f shows some effective use of
features but this is not
sustained
f can generally be understood
throughout,
though mispronunciation of
individual words or sounds
reduces clarity at times
f shows all the positive
features of Band 4
and some, but not all, of the
positive features of Band 6

4 f cannot respond without
noticeable pauses and may
speak slowly, with frequent
repetition and self-correction
f links basic sentences but with
repetitious use of simple
connectives and some
breakdowns in coherence
3 f speaks with long pauses
f has limited ability to link
simple sentences
f gives only simple responses
and is frequently unable to
convey basic message
2 f pauses lengthily before most
words
f little communication possible
1 f no communication possible
f no rateable language
0 f does not attend
f is able to talk about familiar
topics but
can only convey basic meaning
on unfamiliar topics and makes
frequent errors in word choice
f rarely attempts paraphrase
f uses simple vocabulary to
convey
personal information
f has insufficient vocabulary
for less familiar topics
f only produces isolated words
or memorised utterances
f produces basic sentence
forms
and some correct simple
sentences but subordinate
structures are rare
f errors are frequent and may
lead to misunderstanding
f attempts basic sentence
forms
but with limited success, or
relies on apparently
memorised utterances
f makes numerous errors
except in memorised
expressions
f cannot produce basic
sentence
forms
f uses a limited range of
pronunciation
features
f attempts to control features
but lapses are frequent
f mispronunciations are
frequent and cause
some difficulty for the listener
f shows some of the features of
Band 2 and
some, but not all, of the
positive features of
Band 4
f speech is often unintelligible

Appendix C. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.
2015.10.005.

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, & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook
of emotional intelligence (pp. 363–388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
110 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111

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 (pp. S261–S277). Heidelberg: Parmenides Book Series. Springer Verlag.
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.
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.). Boston: D.C. Heath.
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.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., et al. (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. In 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.
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.
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.
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.
 H. Soodmand Afshar, M. Rahimi / Thinking Skills and Creativity 19 (2016) 97–111 111

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.
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., Szentágotai, A. L., 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.