Access to this full-text is provided by Taylor & Francis.
Content available from Cogent Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
CURRICULUM & TEACHING STUDIES | RESEARCH ARTICLE
EFL learners’L2 achievement and its relationship
with cognitive intelligence, emotional
intelligence, learning styles, and language
learning strategies
Hamideh Taheri
1
, Firooz sadighi
1
*, Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri
1
and Mohammad Bavali
1
Abstract: The purpose of this study is threefold: firstly, to explore the relationship
between EFL learners’cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and language
learning achievement, secondly, to find out the relationship between EFL learners’
language learning styles and strategies and their L2 achievement, and thirdly, to
uncover the relationship between EFL learners’emotional and cognitive intelligence
and their use of learning styles and strategies. To this end, 188 Iranian EFL learners
completed five different instruments, namely Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning, and Final Test of English as a Foreign Language. The results
of our study demonstrated that foreign language achievement was significantly
correlated with IQ, three subdomains of EQ (interpersonal relationship, optimism,
and problem-solving), and three learning strategies (cognitive, compensation, and
social). Likewise, the findings manifested that emotional intelligence was signifi-
cantly correlated with language learning strategies and learning styles. This study
holds significant implications for curriculum developers, language policymakers,
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Hamideh Taheri is a Ph.D. candidate in TEFL at
the Islamic Azad University, Shiraz Branch. Her
main research interests include psycholinguis-
tics, foreign/second language teaching and
learning, and educational linguistics.
Firooz Sadighi is a professor of applied lin-
guistics. He has numerous publications in the
areas of educational linguistics, syntax, first/
second language acquisition, and second lan-
guage education.
Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri is an assistant
professor of TEFL at the Islamic Azad University,
Shiraz Branch. His research works mainly include
foreign/second language assessment, e-learn-
ing, and second language research methods.
Mohammad Bavali is an assistant professor of
TEFL at the Islamic Azad University, Shiraz
Branch. He has carried out research mainly in
the areas of foreign/second language
acquisition, second language education, and
dynamic assessment.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Language instructors are usually confronted with
situations wherein the same instruction might be
beneficial to some language learners, yet disad-
vantageous to others. This variation results from
learners’different cognitive and emotional intelli-
gences on one hand and the use of learning styles
and language learning strategies on the other.
Having collected data through self-report ques-
tionnaires and an EFL final test, the authors in this
study investigated EFL learners’L2 achievement
regarding the above-mentioned variables. They
concluded that L2 achievement was more signif-
icantly correlated with IQ than EQ. Language
learning strategies also were observed to have
higher correlation with L2 achievement than
learning styles. Additionally, the findings mani-
fested that emotional intelligence, rather than
cognitive intelligence, enjoyed a significant rela-
tionship with learning styles and language learn-
ing strategies. The results acknowledged the need
of EFL learners to be afforded with ample learning
opportunities to hone their learning skills
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Received: 28 January 2019
Accepted: 05 August 2019
First Published: 17 August 2019
*Corresponding author: Firooz
Sadighi, Department of English lan-
guage, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Shiraz, IRAN (ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC OF)
E-mail: firoozsadighi@yahoo.com
Reviewing editor:
Yaser Khajavi, English, Salman Farsi
University of Kazerun, Iran, IRAN
(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF)
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Page 1 of 21
and educators to afford learners with critical learning opportunities to enhance their
learning skills.
Subjects: Education - Social Sciences; Individual Differences/IQ; Language, Psychology of;
Learning; Cognition & Emotion; Educational Psychology; Language Teaching & Learning
Keywords: Cognitive intelligence; emotional intelligence; language learning strategies;
learning styles; L2 achievement
1. Introduction
Various processes e.g. observing, memorizing, and note-taking are involved in learning. These
processes do not account for how and why learning takes place (Brown, 2004). The innate
complication of the ideational processes of man’s mind strangely fascinated scholars to reflect
on what goes in the brain (Hasanzadeh & Shahmohammadi, 2011).
Second/foreign language learning is noticeably more erratic than first language acquisition. For
this, scholars in the field of second/foreign language acquisition have recently touched upon EFL
learners’variations. Closely associated with learners’academic success, intelligence is among the
key factors that can optimize learning. Abstract intelligence has hitherto been regarded as playing
a significant role in problem-solving abilities. EFL learners’social and psychological difficulties and
more specifically their low degree of attainment have prompted scholars to assume that mental
intelligence is not the only requirement for a thriving life (Hasanzadeh & Shahmohammadi, 2011).
Owing to its primary significance in education, foreign language learning achievement requires
a keen appreciation of its defining attributes. EFL learners, as Mitchel and Myles (2004) point out,
progressively pursue a general path; yet the rate of their final achievement has conclusively been
proved to be different given their diverse characteristics. Learners’internal aspects have hence
been high on the agenda in educational settings (Moafian & Ghanizadeh, 2009). As learners form
the focal point of learning performance, experiential approach to learning with humanism at its
core underline the fact that learners as human beings view internally and act externally at the
same time (Nunan, 2001). This indicates that both cognition and emotion are salient factors in
the second language acquisition process which should be attended to by foreign language teach-
ing authorities in their programs (Amer, 2003; Rastegar & Memarpour, 2009).
Learners’academic achievement is dependent upon their capability and task completion. It
entails multiple aspects dealing primarily with the individuals’cognitive and emotional augmenta-
tion. Psychologists have long viewed cognitive intelligence as a great predictor of learners’educa-
tional achievement. Along the same lines, researchers have recently shifted their attention from
cognitive intelligence (IQ) to emotional intelligence (EQ). The present study in the first place
attempts to probe into EFL learners’cognitive and emotional intelligence. It also aims to investi-
gate the relationship between EFL learners’achievement and their cognitive and emotional
intelligence. Furthermore, we examine whether learners’emotional intelligence and cognitive
intelligence are correlated with their language learning styles (LSs) and language learning strate-
gies (LLSs). More specifically, the study is guided by the following research questions:
(1) Is there any statistically significant relationship between EFL learners’cognitive intelligence
and their language achievement?
(2) Is there any statistically significant relationship between EFL learners’emotional intelligence
and their language achievement?
(3) Is there any statistically significant relationship between EFL learners’language learning
styles and their language achievement?
(4) Is there any statistically significant relationship between EFL learners’language learning
strategies and their language achievement?
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 2 of 21
(5) Are there any statistically significant relationships between EFL learners’emotional and
cognitive intelligence and their use of language learning styles and strategies?
2. Review of literature
2.1. IQ and EQ contribution to second/foreign language learning
As a combination of numerical, spatial, and verbal capabilities, cognitive intelligence involves
individuals’abilities including imagination, memorization, perception, induction, and deduction
(Sternberg, 1996). Learning, as Brown (1994) has put forth, is interconnected with intelligence
and memory. He maintains that the most formidable obstacle on the way of learning a second
language pertains to the issue of recollection. Emotional intelligence is defined as “the ability to
monitor one’s own and others’feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this
information to guide one’s thinking and actions”(Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence
emphasizes the interplay between emotion and cognition (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004).
A person who is emotionally intelligent is skillful enough to recognize, employ, understand, and
moderate their emotions (Mayer & Salovey, 1993).
The impact of IQ and EQ on educational achievement in general and language learning, in
particular, has long turned into a controversial issue among scholars. Academic achievement,
according to Neisser et al. (1996), Appelbaum and Tuma (1982), Ryan and Rosenberg (1983), and
Grossman and Johnson (1982), was acknowledged to be better predicted by IQ tests. Salehi and
Sadighi (2012) however, demonstrated a weak correlation between intelligence and reading
comprehension. In the same vein, Goleman (1995) and Salovey and Mayer (1990) demonstrated
that EQ more than IQ accounts for success in education. According to Goleman (1995, p. 34), “EI
emerges more effective than IQ in distinguishing the individuals’talent”. Goleman (1998) mentions
that people can be sorted according to their IQ before they start a career; it determines which
fields or professions they can hold. Goleman (1998) has eventually asserted that EI maximizes the
effects of IQ and other technical activities.
Emotional components involved in L2 learning have recently been a matter of concern for many
instructors. Thus, a large number of studies have focused on the effect of emotions on learning
a foreign language (e.g., Arnold, 2011; Dewaele, 2015; Hogan et al., 2010; Méndez & Fabela,
2014; Méndez, Marin, & Hernandez, 2015; Soodmand Afshar & Rahimi, 2016). Despite the interac-
tion between emotion and learning, ELT studies have given more considerable attention to the
cognition and thought (Swain, 2013). Méndez (2011), however, believes that learning a foreign
language is emotionally directed. Building on this, Swain (2013) has highlighted the importance of
emotional processes in addition to cognitive processes in L2 acquisition and demonstrated that
cognition and emotion are indivisible.
To determine the significance of cognitive, affective, personality-related, and demographic
factors in anticipating learners’second language achievement, Onwuegbuzie, Slate, Paterson,
Watson, and Schwartz (2000) conducted a study on university students. They observed that both
cognitive and affective variables played pivotal roles in predicting foreign language learning
achievement. Emotional intelligence, as Chao (2003) points out, could universally denote academic
success. In the same vein, Fahim and Pishghadam (2007) purported that more than one aspect of
EI, namely stress management, intrapersonal, and general mood competencies could be effective
in escalating success in education. Their study indicated that academic achievement had a higher
correlation with verbal intelligence, a subpart of the IQ test, than the IQ itself. Although reading
comprehension ability was comparatively related to some aspects of EQ (intrapersonal, interper-
sonal, and stress management), Ghabanchi and Rastegar (2014) demonstrated that the global EQ
and its subsections could not significantly predict learners’reading comprehension proficiency.
They concluded that the correlation between IQ and reading comprehension was much stronger
than the correlation between universal EQ and reading comprehension skill. They suggested
developing learners’intelligence to boost reading comprehension. This can be accomplished by
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 3 of 21
exercising the active recollection of learners and employing some organizational performance
(Buschkuehl & Jaeggi, 2010). Experimental discoveries made concerning cognitive competence
remedy denote that educating learners to improve the skills of observing and self-managing,
handling troubles, and exchanging information can promote emotional intelligence (Carr, 2011)
Notwithstanding the fact that recent studies have centered on cognitive, emotional, and social
aspects of language learning, they manifest more inclination toward affection (e.g. Han & Hyland,
2015;Sato,2017; Swain, 2013). A great number of scholarly researchers revealed that emotions enjoy
a substantial function in SLA (e.g., Dewaele, 2011,2015;Imai,2010;Murphy&Dörnyei,2010;Swain,
2013). Thus, they have shifted their focus of attention fromnegativeemotionssuchaslanguagelearning
anxiety (e.g., Gkonou, Daubney, & Dewaele, 2017; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014)topositiveemotionsfor
better L2 achievement (e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014;Murphy,2014;Oxford,2014). Cognition and
emotion were viewed by Swain (2013) as inseparable concepts conducive to L2 acquisition. In the same
vein, Poehner and Swain (2016) regard L2 development as a cognitive-emotive process.
2.2. Language learning strategies and academic achievement
Language learning strategies defined as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques—such as
seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language
task”(Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, p. 63) are among the affective factors resulting in EFL learners’
success. Among different taxonomies, Oxford’s(1990) has gained the greatest consideration. She
has classified the strategies into memory, cognitive, and compensation as direct strategies and
affective, metacognitive, and social as indirect strategies. According to Jensen (2004), learning can
be made meaningful in case different lobes of the brain are provoked throughout the learning
practice. This is indicative of the significant function of neuropsychology in the learning process.
Thus, learners, as Muelasa and Navarroa (2015) put it, need to take on different types of cognitive
styles, capabilities, and skills while employing learning strategies.
Recently, one of the mounting concerns in the context of language teaching is how to assist low
achieving learners in mastering a second language successfully. During the last decades, LLSs have
been the main concern of many studies mostly investigating the relationship between the strategy
use and foreign language achievement. Studies carried out by Al-Qahtani (2013), Bromley (2013),
Charoento (2016), Fewell (2010), Habók and Magyar (2018), Loret (2011), Muelasa and Navarroa
(2015), Tejedor-Tejedor, González Salvador, and García SeñoráI (2008), Uslu, Sahin, and Odemis
(2016), and Wong and Nunan (2011) manifested a positive and meaningful relationship between
EFL learners’strategy use and their academic achievement. According to Gharbavi and Mousavi
(2012) and Pei-Shi (2012), the more strategies learners employ, the higher level of achievement
they will possibly obtain. Gani, Fajrina, and Hanifa (2015) have proposed that speaking skill
development results from learners’conscious, intentional, and frequent utilization of appropriate
strategies. Language learning strategies make learning situations more active, enjoyable, and
learner-oriented that would lead to learner’s higher level of proficiency (Bromley, 2013).
The conformity of learning strategies with learning styles is still a debatable issue among
scholars (Tulbure, 2012). Further investigations are thus called for to provide insights into the
relationship between learning styles and strategies. Such insights can help students, teachers, and
even prospective researchers attempting to re-assess learning approaches to enhance learners’
academic achievement.
2.3. Learning styles and academic achievement
Learning styles defined as “a person’s preferred approach to information processing, idea forma-
tion, and decision making”(Kalsbeek, 1989, p. 32) are of paramount importance in education and
learner-centered pedagogy. According to Xu (2011), individuals diverge regarding their character,
culture, learning skills, and learning styles giving rise to learners’various levels of achievement.
Educationalists should keep learners abreast of their learning styles to provide an instructive
environment for them to choose the most appropriate teaching methods (Sprenger, 2003).
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 4 of 21
According to Xu (2011), more than seventy learning style models have been identified by scholars.
Some of these models are more frequently employed in second language learning. These learning
style models cannot entirely account for foreign language learning. Nilson (2003)delineatesdiverse
teaching models attending to the learners introduced in Kolb’s Learning Styles Model (1984). At first,
divergers can employ their true experience while going through contemplative inspections.
Convergers try to find out how things work. They are interested in making small alterations in things
in order to make them more effective. Accommodators, on the other hand, prefer to act than to think.
They give priority to practical learning rather than lectures. Assimilators, as the fourth group, are
interested in learning materials which are structured and organized. They look for something to learn.
Thus, EFL learners’styles identification and training, as Banner and Rayner (2000) put forth, lead
to more efficient, relevant, and meaningful learning. Wong and Nunan (2011) are of the opinion
that the adaptability of styles needs to be maintained by teachers in their educational activities. In
doing so, they should take on a variety of skills and practices well suited to different learners with
diverse learning preferences.
2.4. EI relationship with learning styles and learning strategies
There are abundant social and psychological factors showing variations among learners. Macaro
(2007) has proposed considering individual learners’psychological and human dimensions to
acquire a foreign language. In this regard, various types of investigations were performed by
scholars leading to divergent findings. In this regard, Hasanzadeh and Shahmohammadi (2011)
and Aghasafari (2006) conducted a study on the relationship between emotional intelligence and
learning strategies. They found that a significant correlation existed between EI and the students’
use of learning strategies. However, in a study conducted on 87 university students, Shakarami and
Khajehei (2015) discovered a low correlation between learners’emotional intelligence and lan-
guage learning strategies. Unlike the quantitative data, qualitative data gleaned from the study
indicated a strong relationship between the two variables in question. They concluded that “in
planning instruction for a learner or groups of learners, a teacher may wish to target all the
intelligence of a specific domain to provide for the experiences that strengthen that particular
domain”(p.236). The relationship between language learning strategies and trait emotional intelli-
gence was explored among post-graduate Iranian students studying overseas by Fouladi (2012).
She detected that no relationship existed between high and low EQ regarding language learning
strategies. Zafari and Biria (2014), on the other hand, demonstrated that emotional intelligence
and language learning strategy were significantly correlated and students with higher EI employed
more strategies than those with lower EI. They also discovered that the two groups of learners
significantly diverged regarding their type of strategy use.
With regard to the relationship between emotional intelligence and learning styles, Alavinia and
Ebrahimpour (2012) revealed that these two variables were positively and significantly correlated.
Their findings also indicated that an increase in one variable e.g. EI could cause an increase in
another, e.g. LS. The result of this study is in accord with the results obtained by such scholars as
Saklofske, Austin, and Minski (2003), and Saklofske, Austin, Galloway, and Davidson (2007).
Elizabeth and Chirayath (2013) did not observe a strong correlation between EI and LS. They,
however, stated that the impact of emotional intelligence on learning style was undeniable. In
other words, emotional intelligence was viewed as a major determinant of learning style efficacy
and consequence. According to Shahtalebi and Javadi (2014), the ability is associated with emo-
tional intelligence, whereas preferences deal with learning styles. Thus, it is common not to find
any relationship between learners’abilities and preferences.
Taken together, the foregoing discussion implies that the effect of EFL learners’cognitive and
emotional intelligence on such variables as language learning styles and strategies has provoked
controversy among EFL/ESL scholars. Consequently, it warrants further study to provide insights
into the variables in question and their relationship.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 5 of 21
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants
A total of 188 university students majoring in different fields of study mainly engineering, law, art,
and accounting at Islamic Azad University, Bushehr Branch, took part in the study. Participants
were studying in their second semester of the academic year 2017–2018 mostly at intermediate
and low intermediate proficiency levels with their ages ranging from 19 to 35. They were selected
based on convenience sampling. As depicted in Table 1, 84 (44.7%) female and 104 (55.3%) male
participants took part in the study.
Table 1also illustrates that out of the 188 participants taking part in this study, 28 (14.9%) were
less than 20 years old while 154 (81.9%) were between 20 to 30 years old and merely 6 (3.2%)
participants were more than 30 years old. Hence, the majority of the participants were between 20
to 30 years old.
3.2. Research design
To obtain a deep insight into EFL learners’language achievement and their cognitive intelligence,
emotional intelligence, learning styles, and language learning strategies, the researchers in this
study employed a quantitative research design.
3.3. Instrumentation
This study features five instruments to address the research questions. The instruments are
described at length.
3.3.1. Raven’s progressive matrices
Raven’s Progressive Matrices or Raven’s Matrices is a nonverbal group test commonly applied in
educational settings to gauge learners’cognitive ability. In every item of the test, the test- taker is
supposed to find the missing component that completes a pattern of shapes. It is commonly made
up of 60 items primarily employed to estimate abstract reasoning. It also measures fluid intelli-
gence which shows the reasoning ability and problem-solving competency gained by making use
of current information without building on the skills and knowledge formerly achieved.
The internal consistency reliability estimate for APM total raw score was reported as .87 in the
standardization sample of 462 individuals. Test-retest reliability was reported as .91, and the
Cronbach’s alpha reliability index turned out to be .82. The concurrent validity of the Raven’s
Progressive Matrices as proved by correlations with Wechsler intelligence test was found to be .73.
3.3.2. Bar-On emotional quotient inventory
The second instrument employed in this study was the Bar-On EI test, otherwise known as the
Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I). It is a self- report questionnaire assessing emotional and
Table 1. Distribution of gender and age
Frequency Percentage
Female 84 44.7
Gender Male 104 55.3
Total 188 100
<20 28 14.9
Age Group 20–30 154 81.9
>30 6 3.2
Total 188 100
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 6 of 21
socially intelligent behavior, and emotional-social intelligence on a five-point Likert scale designed
by Bar-On in 1980 (Bar-On, 1997). Bar-On’s domains and sub-domains include the following:
(1) Intrapersonal skills (self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, independence,
and self-actualization)
(2) Interpersonal skills (empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal relationships)
(3) Adaptability (reality testing, flexibility, and problem-solving)
(4) Stress management (stress tolerance and impulse control)
(5) General mood (optimism and happiness) (pp. 43–45)
In order to eliminate cross-cultural variations and avoid possible misunderstanding concern-
ing the content of the questionnaire, the translated Persian version of the inventory was
employed. The final version was declined into 90 items taking participants approximately
30 minutes to complete.
The Cronbach’s alpha values obtained in this study for the subdomains of Bar-On’s emotional
intelligence questionnaire are presented in Table 2.
Following Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the subdomains of emotional intelligence
were within the acceptable range of 0.700 to 0.921 confirming the reliability of the questionnaire.
3.3.3. Kolb’s learning style inventory
The other instrument deployed in this study was Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) con-
structed in 1984. It was then modified in 2005, a broadly renowned measure to study
characteristics of various learning styles. The LSI is a 12-item self-report instrument aimed
to assess individuals’priorities concerning specific learning styles, namely diverging, assim-
ilating, converging, and accommodating. Participants were required to rank order the state-
ments from 1 (the least you like) to 4 (the most you like) assessing how well they thought
each statement conformed to their learning processes (Smith & Kolb, 1996)invariouslearn-
ing conditions. Concrete experience (CE) and reflective observation (RO) are described as
diverging learning styles (Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
Assimilating learning styles consist of abstract conceptualization (AC) and reflective
Table 2. Reliability analysis of emotional intelligence subdomains
Emotional Intelligence
subdomains
Number of items Cronbach’s alpha
Independence 6 0.762
Stress tolerance 6 0.784
Self-actualization 6 0.712
Emotional self-awareness 6 0.709
Reality testing 6 0.804
Interpersonal Relationship 6 0.921
Optimism 6 834
Self- reliance 6 0.784
Impulse Control 6 0.725
Flexibility 6 0.7
Social responsibility 6 0.835
Empathy 6 0.709
Assertiveness 6 0.81
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 7 of 21
observation (Kolb, 1984; Kolb et al., 2000). Abstract conceptualization and active experimen-
tation (AE) constitute converging learning styles (Kolb, 1984; Kolb et al., 2000). Concrete
experience and AE are identified as accommodating learning styles (Kolb, 1984; Kolb et al.,
2000). Participants had to take the reverse skills into account. They continuously chose
between these extreme points, that is, CE/RO (Diverging), AC/RO (Assimilating), AC/AE
(Converging), and CE/AE (Accommodating). The first statement of each row corresponds to
CE,thesecondtoRO,thethirdtoAC,andthefourthtoAE(Koob&Funk,2002). Their
responses indicated their learning preferences in different situations. Noteworthy to mention
is that the translated version of Kolb’s learning style questionnaire was utilized in this study.
The Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices are presented in Table 3. The Cronbach’salphavalues
for learners’learning styles confirmed the reliability of the questionnaire.
3.3.4. Language learning strategy inventory
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was developed by Oxford in 1990 in order to
assess language EFL learners learning strategies. It is “perhaps the most comprehensive classifi-
cation of learning strategies to date”(Ellis, 1994, p. 539). Six strategies have been identified in the
SILL: (1) Memory (2) Cognitive (3) Compensation (4) Metacognitive (5) Affective, and (6) Social. This
50-item inventory is classified into two parts comprising of direct learning strategies with 29 items
and indirect learning strategies with 21 items. Direct strategies are classified into memory (9
items), cognitive (14 items), and compensation (6 items) strategies, while indirect strategies are
categorized into metacognitive (9 items), affective (6 items), and social (6 items) strategies. The
participants responded to the inventory on a five-point Likert scale representing what they often
did while learning a language.
As shown in Table 4, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices of all the language learning
strategies were moderately beyond the cut-off point of 0.7 confirming the reliability of all six
types of strategies.
3.3.5. Final test of English as a Foreign language
In order to explore the learners’English language achievement, a course-related test was
administered to the students at the end of the semester of the academic year 2017–2018 to
determine their final scores. The test included 60 multiple-choice items on vocabulary,
Table 3. Reliability analysis of different learning styles
Learning Styles Cronbach’s alpha
Concrete Experience(CE) 0.85
Reflective Observation (RO) 0.82
Abstract Conceptualization(AC) 0.8
Active Experimentation (AE) 0.75
Table 4. Reliability analysis of different language learning strategies
Language Learning
Strategies
Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha
Memory 9 .768
Cognitive 14 .707
Compensation 6 .768
Metacognitive 9 .825
Affective 6 .808
Social 6 .826
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 8 of 21
grammar, as well as reading comprehension passages selected from the students’textbook.
It was developed and pilot-tested before its actual administration. The learners’achievement
scores were obtained right after completing all the questionnaires.
Thetestwasfoundtobebothreliableandvalid.Thecontentvalidityofthetestwaschecked
by two university professors teaching the same course. The reliability of the test obtained
through Cronbach’s alpha turned out to be .924 which is a high index confirming the reliability
of the test.
3.3.5.1. Procedures. The Raven’s APM was administered to learners in a separate session without
any time limit (up to 1 h). It was typically completed within 30 minutes. As the students were
promised to be informed about the results of the IQ test, they all appeared well- motivated.
The Bar-On EQ-I was administered to the students in another session. It took them about
30 minutes to accomplish. Kolb’s learning style questionnaire was administered afterward. No
time limit was set for completing this inventory. It took them nearly 10–15 minutes to complete.
The next inventory administered in the same session was Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning. To complete the inventory, the students were requested to read the statements carefully
and mark a tick by one of the options “Always true of me,”“Usually true of me,”“Somewhat true of
me,”“usually not true of me,”and “never true of me.”It took them about 15–20 minutes to
complete the inventory. As the last instrument of this study, the final test of English as a foreign
language was administered to the students in a separate session at the end of the semester. It
took them about 45 minutes to complete. The scores obtained from the final test indicated their
level of English language achievement.
3.3.5.2. Data analysis. Statistical data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 to
address the research questions previously formulated. Descriptive statistics and inferential statis-
tics were computed to analyze the data collected.
3.3.5.3. Descriptive statistics. Descriptive data of the study as depicted in Table 5were used to
examine the variables under consideration in the study.
The results show the means (average of variables’scores), the standard deviation (the difference
of variables’scores and the mean), and the range of each variable describing minimum and
maximum values.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of IQ, EQ, LS, LLS, and FS
Research variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Cognitive Intelligence (IQ) 188 11 36 27.4 5.126
Emotional
Intelligence(EQ)
188 269 372 309.5914 20.15681
Learning Styles(LS) 188 1 4 2.46 1.096
Language learning
strategies(LLS)
188 105 213 151.5591 20.94908
L2 achievement (Final
Scores)(FS)
188 10 56 29.9043 11.3421
Valid N 188
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 9 of 21
3.3.5.4. Inferential statistics. In this section, each research question was examined either by
parametric or non-parametric statistical tests. The parametric tests are more precise, but they
require that the data be normally distributed. For this reason, the normality of the variables was
examined employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test.
Table 6shows the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. Since p–values were greater than
0.05 (p > 0.05) for all variables (Final Scores, Emotional Intelligence, Cognitive Intelligence,
Language Learning Strategies, and Learning Styles) suggesting that the assumption of normality
was retained. Thus, parametric tests were used to analyze the research questions.
3.3.5.5. Research question 1. The scoring system used for cognitive intelligence questionnaire was
on the Likert scale. Thus, the participants could choose one of the options ranging from 1 to 7.
They were divided into two groups: a) those enjoying high cognitive intelligence, and b) those
possessing low cognitive intelligence. The Pearson’s correlation test was employed to investigate
the first research question. The results are presented in Table 7.
As appeared in Table 7, the correlation between cognitive intelligence and language achieve-
ment was significant at the level of 0.01 (r = .25). This implies that learners with high cognitive
intelligence were considered high language achievers and vice versa.
3.3.5.6. Research question 2. The scoring system for emotional intelligence questionnaire was also
on a Likert scale. The Pearson’s correlation test was utilized in order to answer the second research
question. Tables 8and 9demonstrate the results of descriptive statistics and the Pearson correla-
tion, respectively.
As displayed in Table 9, the correlation between EI and language achievement was not sig-
nificant at the level of 0.01 and 0.05. Nevertheless, the correlation between some of the sub-
variables of emotional intelligence (interpersonal relationship, optimism, and problem-solving) and
L2 achievement was significant at the level of 0.05. It indicates that learners’language achieve-
ment enhances as the use of interpersonal relationship, optimism, and problem-solving increases.
3.3.5.7. Research question 3. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to investigate the
relationship between EFL learners’learning styles and their language achievement. Tables 10 and
11portray the results of descriptive statistics and the One-way ANOVA.
Following Table 11, the results of One-way ANOVA did not reflect any statistically significant
relationship between learners’L2 achievement and language learning styles (sig. = .654). In other
words, language achievement was not significant for different language learning styles.
3.3.5.8. Research question 4. The scoring system used for SILL questionnaire was on a Likert scale.
Pearson’s correlation test was used to find out the relationship between learners’language
achievement and their second language learning strategies. Tables 12 and 13illustrate the
descriptive analysis of six various language learning strategies and the Pearson correlation results,
respectively.
As presented in Table 13, the correlation between language learning strategies and language
achievement was not significant at the level of 0.01 and 0.05. Nonetheless, the correlation
between cognitive, compensation, and social strategies and language achievement was significant
at the level of 0.05. That is, EFL learners’language achievement enhances as the use of cognitive,
compensation, and social strategies increases.
3.3.5.9. Research question 5. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate if there were any
significant relationships between the students’learning styles and their cognitive intelligence and
emotional intelligence. The results are summarized in Table 14.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 10 of 21
Table 6. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality for variables
Emotional
intelligence
Learning styles Language learning
strategies
Cognitive
intelligence
L2 achievement
N 188 188 188 188 188
330 2.46 151.56 27.4 29.9043
38.882 1.096 20.949 5.126 11.3421
Normal Parameters
a,b
Mean 0.19 0.237 0.145 0.215 0.174
Std. Deviation 0.061 0.077 0.052 0.063 0.054
Test Statistic
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 11 of 21
Table 14 depicts that the significance level of test for cognitive intelligence was higher than 0.05
(sig. = .681). Therefore, cognitive intelligence was not significant for different language learning
styles. In contrast, the significance level of test for emotional intelligence was less than 0.05
(sig. = .019) revealing that emotional intelligence is significant for different learning styles.
In order to examine whether any significant relationships existed between EFL learners’different
language learning strategies and their cognitive vs. emotional intelligence, Pearson’s correlation test
was performed. The pertaining results are presented in Table 15.
According to Table 15, the correlation between language learning strategies and cognitive intelli-
gence was not significant at the level of 0.01 and 0.05 (sig. = .934). However, the correlation between
language learning strategies andemotional intelligence was significant at the level of 0.01 (sig. = .009).
4. Discussion
The current research was undertaken to explore the relationship between cognitive and emotional
intelligence and foreign language achievement. It also aimed to find out the relationship between
EFL learners’learning styles, language learning strategies, and their language achievement.
Eventually, the relationship between EFL learners’emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence
and their use of learning styles and strategies was investigated. The results obtained from the
quantitative analysis of the instruments manifested that cognitive intelligence played a highly
influential role in the development of Iranian learners’language achievement. This finding is in line
with those of Genesee (2006), Ghabanchi and Rastegar (2014), Ellis (2008), and Ghonchepour and
Mohaddam (2018) who demonstrated that intelligence is an instrumental factor in language
Table 7. Pearson correlation between cognitive intelligence and L2 achievement
cognitive intelligence
L2 achievement Pearson Correlation .251**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 8. Descriptive statistics of emotional intelligence subdomains
EQ Sub-domains N Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation
Problem-solving 188 17 30 2.80169
Happiness 188 11 24 2.15562
Independence 188 9 29 3.99791
Stress tolerance 188 14 25 2.67511
self-actualization 188 13 27 2.90824
Emotional self-awareness 188 14 26 2.94146
Reality testing 188 6 26 3.28543
InteInterpersonal
relationship
188 14 30 3.84138
Optimism 188 15 28 2.7064
Self-reliance 188 15 29 3.0247
Impulse control 188 6 30 5.78383
Flexibility 188 11 27 2.97494
Social responsibility 188 15 30 2.7386
Empathy 188 16 30 2.70592
Self-assertiveness 188 12 27 2.84471
Valid N (listwise) 188
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 12 of 21
Table 9. Pearson correlation between emotional intelligence subdomains and L2 achievement
Emotional Intelligence
Subdomains
L2 achievement
Pearson Correlation .145*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.047
Happiness Pearson Correlation 0.021
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.774
Independence Pearson Correlation 0.043
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.557
Stress tolerance Pearson Correlation 0.014
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.851
Self-actualization Pearson Correlation 0.038
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.601
Emotional self-awareness Pearson Correlation 0.12
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.1
Reality testing Pearson Correlation 0.012
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.874
Interpersonal relationship Pearson Correlation .174*
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017
Optimism Pearson Correlation .204**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.005
Self-reliance Pearson Correlation 0.111
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.13
Impulse control Pearson Correlation 0.101
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.17
Flexibility Pearson Correlation 0.003
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.967
Social responsibility Pearson Correlation 0.137
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.061
Empathy Pearson Correlation 0.013
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.855
Assertiveness Pearson Correlation 0.047
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.52
Emotional Intelligence Pearson Correlation 0.089
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.225
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 10. Descriptive statistics of EFL learners’learning styles
Learning styles Frequency Percent
Valid Converging (AC and AE) 52 27.7
Diverging (CE and RO) 32 17
Assimilating (AC and RO) 68 35.1
Accommodating (CE and AE) 36 19.1
Total 188 100
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 13 of 21
achievement. Our findings revealed that total emotional intelligence was not significantly corre-
lated with language achievement. This is consistent with the finding obtained by Berenji (2010)
and Woitaszewski and Aalsma (2004) who discovered that emotional intelligence did not con-
tribute significantly to the academic achievement of EFL learners. Notwithstanding the insignif-
icant relationship between the whole emotional intelligence and language achievement, some
sub-variables of emotional intelligence were proved to be correlated with language learning. This is
commensurate with the findings uncovered by Salovey and Grewal (2005), Pishghadam (2009),
Table 11. Results of One-way ANOVA for L2 achievement and language learning styles
Sum of
Squares
Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 201.515 3 70.172 0.541 0.654
Within Groups 23,845.762 184 129.597
Total 24,056.277 187
Table 12. Descriptive analysis of EFL learners’language learning strategies
Language Learning
strategies
N Minimum Maximum Mean St. Deviation
188 15 41 26.9468 5.1799
Memory 188 23 67 42.2128 8.34404
Cognitive 188 9 30 18.4894 4.25081
Compensation 188 16 45 32.5319 6.74945
Metacognitive 188 7 21 14.0532 3.76976
Affective 188 7 30 17.7128 4.09675
Social
Valid N (listwise) 188
Table 13. Correlations between language learning strategies and L2 achievement
Language Learnin Strategies L2 achievement
Memory Pearson Correlation 0.055
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.457
Cognitive Pearson Correlation .247**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001
Compensation Pearson Correlation .256**
Metacognitive Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Pearson Correlation 0.045
Affective Sig. (2-tailed) 0.542
Pearson Correlation 0.076
Social Sig. (2-tailed) 0.302
Pearson Correlation .174*
Language Learning Strategies Sig. (2-tailed) 0.017
Pearson Correlation 0.101
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.169
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 14 of 21
Berenji (2010), and Farahani and Shahbazi (2019) who manifested a number of EQ components as
positively affecting learners’second language achievement.
To justify the results of the study in terms of the significance of IQ and non-significance of the
whole EQ in predicting language achievement, it can be pointed out that owing to the teacher-
centeredness of educational system in Iran, learners’emotional intelligence are not taken into
much consideration by EFL educators during instruction. Further, the trainability of EQ (Lotfi
Kashani, Lotfi Azimi, & Vaziri, 2012), the inseparability of cognition and emotion (Swain, 2013),
and the impact of affection on cognitive processes (Heydarnejad & Ebrahimi, 2019) are neglected
and not attended to by most EFL teachers in Iranian contexts.
The results of the study also illustrated that all types of language learning strategies were not
significantly correlated with learners’second language achievement. The same was uncovered by
Bialystok (1981), and Mullins (1992). However, not all the sub-variables were found unrelated to
language success but among six strategies of language learning three strategies were considered
strong predictors of language achievement. These results are in conflict with the findings uncovered by
Soodmand Afshar, Tofighi, and Hamazavi (2016), Hong-Nam and Leavel (2006), and Ghonchepour and
Moghaddam (2018) who have established that strategy use plays a crucial role in learning a foreign
language and is also a strong predictor of language achievement. The finding of the study regarding
the significant relationship of merely three strategies among six components in learning a second
language can be justified on the ground that strategy use depends on such factors as learning
situation, learners’capabilities, and language skill. Thus, not all the strategies could prove effective
in the same way. Further, learners’lack of awareness and sufficient background knowledge concerning
learning strategies may hinder their utilization of appropriate strategies.
In the same vein, the current study reflected no statistically significant correlation between EFL
learners’learning styles and their L2 achievement relationship. This finding agrees with the results
obtained by a number of researchers such as Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and Daley (2000), Bicer (2014),
Busato,Prins,Elshout,andHamaker(2000), Soodmand Afshar et al. (2016), and Yildirim, Cevat Acar,
Bull, and Sevinc (2008) who demonstrated no significant relationship between learning styles and L2
achievement. One line of explanation might justify the results regarding the insignificant correlation
Table 14. Results of one-way ANOVA for cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and
language learning styles
Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig.
Cognitive intelligence Between Groups 39.985 3 13.328 .503 .681
Within Groups 4873.292 184 26.485
Total 4913.277 187
Emotional intelligence Between Groups 3957.861 3 1317.620 3.400 .019
Within Groups 71,298.053 184 387.489
Total 75,250.915 187
Table 15. Correlations between cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and language
learning strategies
language learning strategies
Cognitive intelligence Pearson Correlation −0.006
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.934
Emotional intelligence Pearson Correlation .189**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 15 of 21
between LSs and language achievement. In point of fact, educators’limited knowledge of learning styles
efficacy and up-to-date teaching methods have made them not to be mindful of the learning styles of
their learners during instruction. Additionally, learner’s lack of awareness and knowledge of their own
learning styles and preferences prevent them from perceiving the learning styles required for better
achievement.
Furthermore, the current study demonstrated a significant relationship between EQ and language
learning styles and strategies. These findings disagree with the results obtained by Shahtalebi and
Javadi (2014), Giadenaka (2008), and Suliman (2010) who demonstrated a weak relationship or even
no relationship between learning styles and language achievement. However, in line with the results
of the current study, Alavinia and Mollahossein (2012), Garcia-Fernandez et al. (2015), Hasanzadeh
and Shahmohamadi (2011), and Soodmand Afshar et al. (2016), and Zafari and Biria (2014) demon-
strated a significant relationship between LLSs and language achievement. They revealed that
learners with higher emotional intelligence applied more strategies than those with lower emotional
intelligence. The rationale behind the findings of the study in terms of the significant relationship
between learners’EQ and their use of LLSs and LSs lies in the fact that emotions not only generate
learners’inclination to perform but also impel them to act physically. Further, positive emotions lead
to the learners’productivity, new potentiality, and opinions concerning social, mental, and physical
promotions. Negative emotions, in contrast, restrict learners’repertoire of thinking and performing.
As far as the results of the study are concerned, EFL learners’cognitive intelligence was discovered
to be correlated neither with learning styles nor with language learning strategies. However, this does
not underestimate the significance and value of cognitive intelligence. Conversely, as the first finding
of the study demonstrated, cognitive intelligence plays a fundamental role in university learners’
language achievement. The significance of cognitive intelligence in language achievement on the one
hand and the high correlation between emotional intelligence and language learning strategies and
learning styles, on the other hand, elucidates the fact that both types of intelligence are integral to
language acquisition. Along the same lines, Ghonchepour and Moghaddam (2018) stress the impact of
intelligence on language learning. Nonetheless, they hold the degree to which intelligence influences
language learning is not specified. In addition to cognition, a number of emotional factors such as
happiness, independence, self-awareness, assertiveness, empathy, etc. can also play a pivotal role in
learners’utilization of LLSs and LSs and thereby learning a foreign or second language.
The current study thus illuminates the fact that cognitive intelligence, despite being indispensable
in L2 achievement, is not sufficient. Developing emotional intelligence leads the learners to attain
their great goal of L2 learning more smoothly as it leads to productive thought as well as reasonable
performance (Nelson & Low, 2006). The skills associated with emotional intelligence can synchronize
cognitive intelligence with emotional intelligence leading to practical performance. Also, they assist
learners in coping with the challenges they encounter in their surroundings.
5. Conclusion and implications
The current study investigated the relationship between cognitive intelligence and emotional intelli-
gence and learners’language achievement. The results of the study demonstrated that language
achievement possessed a significant correlation with cognitive intelligence, yet a nonsignificant
relationship with total emotional intelligence. Among 15 subdomains of emotional intelligence, only
three i.e. interpersonal relationship, optimism, and problem-solving manifested a significant relation-
ship with language achievement. Thus, teachers should take the EQ sub-variables most effective in
learning a foreign language into consideration to provide learners with the necessary assistance and
emotional training. This will raise their awareness of the importance of emotional intelligence in
learning a foreign language in addition to cognitive intelligence.
The findings of the study manifested no statistically significant relationship between learners’
language achievement and their utilization of all types of language learning strategies and
learning styles. However, among the six types of language learning strategies, merely cognitive,
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 16 of 21
compensation, and social strategies were found highly correlated with language achievement. EFL
teachers, thus, should impart the knowledge of learning strategies to language learners. Language
learners require teachers’guidance and instruction to learn how to learn. In so doing, educators
have to train and empower learners to plan for their own learning and react to what they have
achieved. This will prepare individuals for independent language learning.
In respect of the relationship between EFL learners’emotional and cognitive intelligence and their
use of language learning styles and language learning strategies, the findings manifested that
emotional intelligence, unlike cognitive intelligence, was significantly correlated with language learn-
ing strategies and learning styles. EFL teachers should thus refrain from using their comfort zone and
try a diversity of styles and strategies conducive to successful language learning. Moreover, they
should do their best to extend the learners’repertoire of styles and strategies, identify their various
types, acquaint learners with various tasks related to each type, and instruct them to capitalize on the
necessary activities and skills properly.
Additionally, curriculum developers, language policymakers, and educators should afford learners
important learning opportunities to hone their learning skills. Affective strategies, according to Oxford
(1990), are instrumental in generating an emotional atmosphere which seems to be appropriate for the
classroom. By making use of many tasks and practices, learners could overcome their negative attitudes
towards cultural issues, shyness, and vagueness. Learners should also be motivated by teachers to take
risks in learning a second language. These skills and many others might assist students to enhance their
emotional intelligence. This mission, as Vieira (2003) points out, could be achieved by prevailing over the
curriculum constraints present in the learning environment. Language instructors could also make the
classroom environment as enjoyable and stimulating as possible by utilizing a variety of techniques such
as second language learning practices and stimulating tasks and games.
The results of the current study could carry important implications for curriculum developers and
syllabus designers to have an effective collaboration with English teachers. Through this coopera-
tion, they could dedicate a considerable amount of time in the curriculum to teachers so as to
familiarize learners with language learning strategies in EFL classrooms. This collaboration could
also lead to the development of textbooks and materials that conform to learners’emotional
intelligence, language learning strategies, and learning styles.
The results of the present study might be of great assistance to educators to opt for various sorts
of well-suited teaching materials to meet the requirements of language learners enjoying differing
capabilities. Thus, educationalists and program developers are required to carry out needs analysis
before specifying instructional materials or textbooks. This will allow instructors to base their
proposed tasks and activities upon learners’learning requirements. Educationalists, thus, can
design and develop textbooks and materials which highlight language learning strategies and
learning styles that best suit EFL learners’emotional intelligence.
The findings of the study may also contribute to teachers to modify their instruction, design
appropriate syllabuses and materials, afford considerable learning opportunities, and specify
appropriate tasks and assignments with a view to promoting EFL learners’academic achievement.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Hamideh Taheri
1
E-mail: taherih86@yahoo.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0323-9258
Firooz sadighi
1
E-mail: firoozsadighi@yahoo.com
Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri
1
E-mail: firoozsadighi@yahoo.com
Mohammad Bavali
1
E-mail: taherih86@yahoo.com
1
Department of English language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.
Citation information
Cite this article as: EFL learners’L2 achievement and its
relationship with cognitive intelligence, emotional intelli-
gence, learning styles, and language learning strategies,
Hamideh Taheri, Firooz sadighi, Mohammad Sadegh
Bagheri & Mohammad Bavali, Cogent Education (2019), 6:
1655882.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 17 of 21
References
Aghasafari, M. (2006). On the relationship between emo-
tional intelligence and language learning strategies.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Allameh Tabataba’i
University, Iran.
Alavinia, P., & Ebrahimpour, S. (2012). On the correlation
between emotional intelligence and learning styles:
The case of Iranian academic EFL learners. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies,2(6), 1291–1299.
Alavinia, P., & Mollahossein, H. (2012). On the correlation
between Iranian EFL learners’use of metacognitive
listening strategies and their emotional intelligence.
International Education Studies,5(6), 189–203.
Al-Qahtani, M. F. (2013). Relationship between English
language, learning strategies, attitudes, motivation,
and students’academic achievement. Journal of
Medical Education,5,19–29.
Amer, A. A. (2003). Teaching EFL/ESL literature. The
Reading Matrix,3(2), 63–73.
Appelbaum,A.S.,&Tuma,J.M.(1982). The relationship of
theWISC-Rtoacademicachievementinaclinical
population. Journal of Clinical Psychology,38, 401–405.
Arnold, J. (2011). Attention to affect in language learning.
International Journal of English Studies,22(1), 11–22.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Using
learning style to predict foreign language achieve-
ment at the college level. System,28(1), 115–133.
Banner, G., & Ryan, S. (2000). Learning language and
learning style: Principles, process and practice.
Language Learning Journal,21,21–37.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory
(EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Berenji, S. (2010). The relationship between emotional
intelligence and students` academic achievements in
general EFL classes. The Journal of Applied
Linguistics,3(2), 50–66.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies
in second language proficiency. Modern Language
Journal,65(1), 24–35.
Bicer, D. (2014). The effect of students’and instructors’
learning styles on achievement of foreign language
preparatory school students. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences,141, 382–386. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.05.067
Bromley, P. (2013). Active learning strategies for diverse
learning styles: Simulations are only one method.
Political Science & Politics,46(4), 818–822.
doi:10.1017/S1049096513001145
Brown, G. (2004). How students learn: A supplement to the
Routledge Falmer key guides for effective teaching.
Retrieved from www.routledgeeducation.com
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive
approach to language pedagogy. NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C.
(2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality,
achievement, motivation and academic success of
psychology students in higher education. Personality
and Individual Differences,29(6), 1057–1068.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00253-6
Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2010). Improving intelli-
gence: A literature review. Swiss Medical Weekly,140
(19–20), 266–272.
Carr, A. (2011). Positive psychology: The science of happi-
ness and human strengths. Sussex: Routledge.
Chao, C. (2003). Foreign language anxiety and emotional
intelligence: A study of EF students in Taiwan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, A & M University,
College Station, Texas.
Charoento, M. (2016). Individual learner differences and
language learning strategies. Contemporary
Educational Researches Journal,7,57–72.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2011). The differences in self-reported use
and perception of the L1 and L2 of maximally profi-
cient bi- and multilinguals: A quantitative and quali-
tative investigation. International Journal of
Sociology of Language,208,25–51.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2015). On emotions in foreign language
learning and use. The Language Teacher,39(3),
13–15.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of
Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign lan-
guage classroom. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching,4(2), 237–274. doi:10.14746/
ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Elizabeth, N., & Chirayath, S. (2013). Emotional intelli-
gence and learning style and its strategies. Journal of
Business Management & Social Sciences Research
(JBM&SSR),2(6), 92–95.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fahim, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2007). On the role of emo-
tional, psychometric, and verbal intelligences in the
academic achievement of university students
majoring in the English language. Asian EFL Journal,
9, 240–253.
Farahani, A. A. K., & Shahbazi, H. G. (2019). The rela-
tionship between the emotional intelligence of
Iranian EFL learners and their performance on the
listening section of IELTS. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research,10(3), 469–476.
doi:10.17507/jltr.1003.09
Fewell, N. (2010). Language learning tsrategies and
English language proficiency: An investigation of
Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal,2,
159–174.
Fouladi, M. (2012). The effects of emotional intelligence
on the choice of language learning strategies. Indian
Journal of Education and Information Management,1
(11), 518–526.
Gani, S. A., Fajrina, D., & Hanifa, R. (2015). Students’
learning strategies for developing speaking ability.
Studies in English Language and Education,2(1),
16–28. doi:10.24815/siele.v2i1.2232
Garcia-Fernandez, J. M., Ingles, C. J., Suria, R., Lagos-San
Martin, N., Gonzalvez-Macia, C., Aparisi, D., &
Martinez-Monteagudo, M. C. (2015). Profiles of emo-
tional intelligence and learning strategies in
a sample of Chilean students. European Journal of
Psychology of Education,30(4), 437–455.
doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0254-9
Genesee, F. (2006). The role of intelligence in second
language learning. Language Learning,26(2),
267–280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00277.x
Ghabanchi, Z., & Rastegar, R. (2014). The correlation of IQ
and emotional intelligence with reading
comprehension. The Reading Matrix,14(2), 135–144.
Gharbavi, A., & Mousavi, S. A. (2012). Do language profi-
ciency levels correspond to language learning strat-
egy adoption? English Language Teaching,5(7),
110–122. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n7p110
Ghonchepour, M., & Mohaddam, M. P. (2018). The role of
intelligence in learning English as a foreign language.
Language Learning,26(2), 267–280.
Giadenaka, K. J. (2008). Learning styles and emotional
intelligence of the adult learner. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 18 of 21
Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2017). New
insights into language anxiety: Theory, research, and
educational implications. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York:
Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence.
London: Bloomsbury.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on
individual differences: From premise to practice.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Grossman, F. M., & Johnson, K. M. (1982). WISC-R factor
scores as predictors of WRAT performance:
A multivariate analysis. Psychology in the Schools,19,
465–468. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6807
Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2018). The effect of language
learning strategies on proficiency, attitudes and
school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 2358.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02358
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engage-
ment with written corrective feedback in a Chinese
tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language
Writing,30,31–44. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Hasanzadeh, R., & Shahmohammadi, F. (2011). Study of
emotional intelligence and strategies. International
conference on education and educational psychol-
ogy (ICEEPSY). Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences,29, 1824–1829. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.11.430
Heydarnejad, T., Ebrahimi, M. R., & Adel, S. M. R. (2019).
The influence of applying emotion-based language
instruction in teaching oral skills to EFL learners.
International Journal of Instruction,12(2), 275–288.
doi:10.29333/iji.2019.12218a
Hogan, M. J., Parker, J. D., Wiener, J., Watters, C.,
Wood, L. M., & Oke, A. (2010). Academic success in
adolescence: Relationships among verbal IQ, social
support and emotional intelligence. Australian
Journal of Psychology,62(1), 30–41. doi:10.1080/
00049530903312881
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavel, A. G. (2006). Language learning
strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English
learning context. System,34(3), 399–415.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from col-
laborative learning for an EFL classroom. The Modern
Language Journal,94(2), 278–292. doi:10.1111/
modl.2010.94.issue-2
Jensen, E. (2004). Cerebro y aprendizaje: competencias
e implicaciones educativas. Madrid: Narcea.
Kalsbeek, D. H. (1989). Linking learning style theory with
retention research: The TRAILS project. Association
for Institutional Research,32,1–7.
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning style and learning
space: Enhancing experiential learning in higher
education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education,4(2), 193–212. doi:10.5465/
amle.2005.17268566
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000).
Experiential learning theory research and new direc-
tions. In R. J. Sternberg & F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives
on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles (pp.
193–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koob, J, & Funk, J. (2002). Kolb's learning style inventory:
issues of reliability and validity. Research on Social
Work Practice,12(2), 293-308.
Loret, J. E. (2011). Learning styles and strategies for
academic achievement of the students of the uni-
versity Peru. Rev Learn Style,8(8), 1–40.
LotfiKashani, F., Lotfi Azimi, A., & Vaziri, S. H. (2012).
Relationship between emotional intelligence and
educational achievement. Procedia - Social and
behavioral sciences (Vol. 69, pp. 1270–1275).
Macaro, E. (2007). Learning strategies in foreign
and second language classrooms. London:
Continuum.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of
emotional intelligence. Intelligence,17, 443.
doi:10.1016/0160-2896(93)90010-3
Mayer, J. D, Salovey, P, & Caruso, D. R. (2004). emotional
intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications.
Psychological Inquiry,15(3), 197–215.
Méndez, M. G. (2011). The motivational properties of
emotions in foreign language learning. Colombian
Applied Linguistics Journal,13,43–59. doi:10.14483/
22487085.3764
Méndez, M. G., Marin, A., & Hernandez, I. (2015).
Emotional experiences revealed by foreign language
students at the UQROO. In M. Méndez (Ed.), Emotions
reported by English language teaching major students
in Mexico (pp. 147–169). Chetumal, Q. Roo:
Universidad de Quintana Roo.
Méndez, M. G., & Fabela, M. (2014). Emotions and their
effects in a language learning Mexican context.
System,42, 298–307. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2013.12.006
Mitchel, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning
theories. London: Arnold.
Moafian, F., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2009). The relationship
between Iranian EFL teachers’emotional intelligence
and their self-efficacy in language institutes. System,
37(4), 708–718. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.014
Muelasa, A., & Navarroa, E. (2015). Learning strategies
and academic achievement. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences,165, 217–221. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.12.625
Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language learning
strategies of students enrolled in the faculty of arts,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States
International University, San Diego, CA.
Murphy, R. S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Where does psychol-
ogy and second language acquisition research con-
nect? An interview with Zoltán Dörnyei. The
Language Teacher,34(2), 19–23.
Murphy, V. (2014). Second language learning in early
school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. I., Wade Boykin, A.,
Brody, N., Stephen, J., …Urbina, S. (1996).
Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American
Psychologist,51,77–101.
Nelson, D., & Low, G. (2006). Emotional intelligence and
college success: A research h-based assessment and
intervention model. In J. Cassidy, A. Martinez, &
C. Swift (Eds.), Supporting student success (pp.
236–247). Corpus Christi, TX: Texas A & M University-
Corpus Christi.
Nilson, L. B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-based
resource for college instructors (2nd ed.). Bolton:
Heinle & Heinle.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second language acquisition. In
R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide
to teaching English to speakers of other languages
(pp. 87–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J., Paterson, F., Watson, M., &
Schwartz, R. (2000). Factors associated with under-
achievement in educational research courses.
Research in the Schools,7,53–65.
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 19 of 21
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What
every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2014). What we can learn about strategies,
language learning, and life from two extreme cases:
The role of well-being theory. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching,4(4), 237–274.
doi:10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.4.2
Pei-Shi, W. (2012). The effect of learning styles on learn-
ing strategy use by EFL learners. Journal of Social
Sciences,8((2)), 230–234. doi:10.3844/
jssp.2012.230.234
Pishghadam, R. (2009). A quantitative analysis of the
relationship between emotional intelligence and for-
eign language learning. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language,6(1), 31–41.
Poehner, E., & Swain, M. (2016). L2 development as
cognitive-emotive process. Language and
Sociocultural Theory,3(2), 219–241. doi:10.1558/lst.
v3i2.32922
Rastegar, M., & Memarpour, S. (2009). The relationship
between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy
among Iranian EFL teachers. International Journal
of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics
(system),37,700–707. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2009.09.013
Ryan, J. J., & Rosenberg, S. J. (1983). Relationship
between WAIS-R and a wide range achievement test
in a sample of mixed patients. Perceptual and Motor
Skills,56(2), 623–626. doi:10.2466/
pms.1983.56.2.623
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Galloway, J., & Davidson, K.
(2007). Individual differences correlate of
health-related behaviors: Preliminary evidence for
links between emotional intelligence and coping.
Personality and Individual Differences,42, 491–502.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.006
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor
structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence
measure. Personality and Individual Differences,34,
702–721. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00056-9
Salehi, M., & Sadighi, F. (2012). The relationship between
intelligence and foreign language learning, and the
role of practice. Journal of Language, Culture, and
Translation (LCT),1(1), 33–48.
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional
intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological
Science,14(6), 281–285. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00381.x
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality,9, 185–211.
doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Sato, M. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional
behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-
cognitive model. Language Learning,67(2), 249–283.
doi:10.1111/lang.12214
Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of
language learning: The individual in the communica-
tion classroom. Boston: Heinle.
Shahtalebi, B., & Javadi, H. (2014). Relationship between
emotional intelligence and learning styles of
students. Journal of Applied Environmental and
Biological Sciences,4(2), 245–251.
Shakarami, A., & Khajehei, H. (2015). How emotional
intelligence and language learning strategies inter-
act in an EFL setting. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics & English Literature,4(2), 229–237.
Smith, D, & Kolb, D. (1996). User guide for the learning
style inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers.
Boston: McBer and Company.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Rahimi, M. (2016). Reflective
thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking ability
of EFL learners: Is there a relation? Thinking Skills and
Creativity,19,9
7–111. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.005
Soodmand Afshar, H., Tofighi, S., & Hamazavi, R. (2016).
Iranian EFL learners’emotional intelligence, learning
styles, strategy use, and their L2 achievement. Issues
in Educational Research,26(4), 635.
Sprenger, M. (2003). Differentiation through learning styles
and memory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Cognitive Psychology. New York,
NY: Harcourt Brace.
Suliman, W. A. (2010). The relationship between learning
style, emotional intelligence, and academic success
of the undergraduate nursing student. Journal of
Nursing Research,18(2), 136–143. doi:10.1097/
JNR.0b013e3181dda797
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and
emotion in second language learning. Language
Teaching,46, 195–207. doi:10.1017/
S0261444811000486
Tejedor-Tejedor, F. J., González Salvador, G., & García
SeñoráI, M. M. (2008). Attentional strategies and
academic performance in secondary school students.
Latin American Journal of Psychology,40(1), 123–132.
Tulbure, C. (2012). Learning styles, teaching strategies
and academic achievement in higher education: A
cross-sectional investigation. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences,33, 398–402. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.01.151
Uslu, M. E., Sahin, E., & Odemis, I. S. (2016). The effect of
language learning strategies on academic
achievement. Journal of Educational and
Instructional Studies in the World,6(3), 73–78.
Vieira, F. (2003). Addressing constraints on autonomy in
school contexts: lessons from working with teachers.
In Palfreyman D. & Smith R.C. (Eds.), Learner auton-
omy across cultures: Language education perspec-
tives (pp. 220-239). Basinstoke: Palgrave, Mc Millan.
Woitaszewski, S. A., & Aalsma, M. C. (2004). The contri-
bution of emotional intelligence to the social and
academic success of gifted adolescents as measured
by the multifactor emotional intelligence scale -
adolescent version. Roeper Review,27(1), 25–30.
doi:10.1080/02783190409554285
Wong,L.L.C.,&Nunan,D.(2011). The learning styles
and strategies of effective lan guage learners.
System,39(2), 144–163. doi:10.1016/j.
system.2011.05.004
Xu, W. (2011). Learning styles and their implications in
learning and teaching. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies,1(4), 413–416. doi:10.4304/
tpls.1.4.413-416
Yildirim, O., Cevat Acar, A., Bull, S., & Sevinc, L. (2008).
Relationships between teachers’perceived leader-
ship style, students’learning style, and academic
achievement: A study on high school students.
Educational Psychology,28(1), 73–81. doi:10.1080/
01443410701417945
Zafari,M.,&Biria,R.(2014). The Relationship between
emotional intelligence and language learning
strategy Use. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences,98, 1966–1974. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.03.630
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 20 of 21
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article isdistributed under a CreativeCommons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share —copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt —remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution —You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others fromdoing anything the license permits.
Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
•Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
•High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
•Download and citation statistics for your article
•Rapid online publication
•Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
•Retention of full copyright of your article
•Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
•Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Taheri et al., Cogent Education (2019), 6: 1655882
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1655882
Page 21 of 21
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
