EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

1
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

• ENGAGING THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
• FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY
• IN DISTANCE AND DISTRIBUTED HIGHER
  EDUCATION

2

• WHY ENGAGE THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN?

3
CURRENT RESEARCH

• Emotional intelligence may be
• related to
• academic achievement.
• Using an Emotional Intelligence Test Instrument,
  the MSCEIT, V.2, designed by Professors Peter
  Salovey, Chair of the Psychology Dept. at Yale
  University, and Jack Mayer, Psychology Dept., the
  University of New Hampshire,
• previous research shows a relation of emotional
  intelligence to the general intelligence involved
  in academic achievement (Mayer, Salovey and
  Caruso, 2000),
• and current research shows that higher level
  emotional intelligence is significantly related
  to the current-semester GPAs of the MSCEIT, V.2
  test-takers (Edison, 2002). For more information
  email PeterSalovey_at_Yale.edu or access the
  professional healthcare website mhs.com

4
My research using the MSCEIT, V.2
detected a tendency for undergraduates who
understand and manage emotions to have higher
GPAs.
5
Analyzing the MSCEIT, V.2 test results
using the Pearson r found that test scores on
Understanding Emotions correlated significantly
with test-takers GPA at r .432, which is
significant at the plt.01 level (2-tailed). GPA
also correlated significantly with Managing
Emotions at r .314, which is significant at the
plt.05 level (2-tailed). The p levels mean that
there is a 99 certainty, and a 95 certainty,
that the correlations are true and did not occur
by chance.
6

INSIDE THE PEARSON CORRELATION Understanding
Emotions
GPA 3.6 to 4.0 Mean MSCEIT,
V.2 score 113 GPA 3.0 to 3.59 Mean MSCEIT, V.2
score 111 GPA Below 3.0 Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score
100 Note the 13-point scores difference in
Understanding Emotions, for higher GPAs versus
lower GPAs. Managing Emotions
GPA
3.6 to 4.0 Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score 106 GPA 3.0
to 3.59 Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score 104 GPA Below
3.0 Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score 97 Note the
9-point scores-difference in Managing Emotions
for higher GPAs versus lower GPAs.
7
GENDER DIFFERENCE

• Current research using the MSCEIT, V.2 shows
  that females tend to score somewhat higher than
  males in Understanding Emotions and Managing
  Emotions.
• However, focus group comments by high-scoring
  MSCEIT, V.2 test-takers of both genders indicate
  that it is the male undergraduate, AND NOT the
  FEMALE, who manages emotions before beginning a
  learning task. (Is this difference a cultural
  expectation?)

8
The MSCEIT, V.2 TEST-TAKERS

• In this study, 15 emotional intelligence ability
  tasks were tested and scored for a special sample
  of 61 high-achieving undergraduates who took the
  MSCEIT, V.2 on-line at a top-ranked public
  university in the southeastern United States with
  high admission standards. Each year at this
  campus, over 8,000 apply for admission 1,332 are
  accepted. In this study, 14 participants were
  Phi Beta Kappa, 20 were designated Monroe
  Scholars (the higher achievers of the high
  achievers admitted to this campus), and 24 were
  neither Phi Beta Kappa nor Monroe Scholars.

9
The MSCEIT, V.2 Tasks

• Branch 1X Tasks are about Perceiving Emotions in
  facial expressions and pictures of objects.
• Branch 2X Tasks are about Using Emotions and
  recognizing moods that facilitate thinking.
• Branch 3X Tasks ask higher level abstract
  reasoning questions about Understanding Emotions
  and combinations and blends of emotions in
  response to resolving an emotional situation.
• Branch 4X Tasks ask complex higher level abstract
  reasoning questions about Managing Emotions in
  self and others, in order to solve a problem in a
  personal relationship.

10
The MSCEIT, V.2 Results

• A significant relation to academic achievement
  was found in the higher level problem-solving
  Tasks in Branches 3X and 4X Understanding and
  Managing Emotions. In these Tasks, the
  test-taker was asked to reason with emotions
  (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
• Basically the question posed is whether a human
  being ever does thinking without feeling
  (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964), from Blooms
  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II
  Affective Domain.

11
Blooms Taxonomy

• Educational Objectives
• for the Affective Domain
• What is missing is a systematic effort to
  collect evidence of growth in affective
  objectives
• which is in any way parallel
• to the very great and systematic efforts to
  evaluate cognitive achievement
• (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964, p. 16).

12
APPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY IN DISTANCE
AND DISTRIBUTED HIGHER EDUCATION

• PAYING ATTENTION

13
BLOOMS INSTRUCTIONAL STEP 1

• Step 1.1 Present the Learning Stimulus
• Step 1.2 Engage Willingness to Receive It
• Step 1.3 Promote Willingness to Respond to It
• Resulting in CONTROLLED ATTENTION

14
SIMPLE AWARENESS OF THE LEARNING STIMULUS

• WITHOUT COGNITION

15
WILLINGNESS TO RECEIVE

• THE LEARNING STIMULUS

16
SATISFACTION IN RESPONDING
17
CONTROLLED OR SELECTED

• ATTENTION

18
THE TWO DOMAINS

• COGNITIVE OUTCOMES HAVE TO DO WITH THE
  UTILIZATION OF HIGHER-ORDER INTELLECTUAL
  PROCESSES SUCH AS KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION,
  DECISION-MAKING, SYNTHESIS AND REASONING
• (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p.5)

• AFFECTIVE OUTCOMES ARE ATTITUDES, VALUES,
  ASPIRATIONS, AND PERSONALITY DISPOSITIONS
• (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p.5)

19
TOWARDS A NEW TAXONOMY

• WHAT EMOTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE FOR ACADEMIC
  ACHIEVEMENT?
• CAN ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION ENGAGE THE TWO DOMAINS?

20
WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (Disclaimer)

• THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY CANNOT EXPLAIN HOW
  EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS RELATED TO HIGHER
  ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
• AND, AS FOR DESIGNING THAT NEW EPISTEMOLOGY, AND
  NEW INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES To SIMULTANEOUSLY
  ENGAGE THE TWO DOMAINS, THIS STUDY DOES NOT
  SUGGEST THE HOW TO --ONLY THE WHY TO

21
WHAT NEXT?

• FUTURE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO IDENTIFY THE
  ACHIEVEMENT BEHAVIORS OF EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT
  STUDENTS WHO ARE ALSO HIGH ACHIEVERS.
• THE STUDENTS IN THIS STUDY WERE ALL HIGH
  ACHIEVERS. THEY DESCRIBED THEIR EAGERNESS TO
  BEGIN LEARNING, THEIR EXCITEMENT ABOUT THE
  SUBJECT, AND CONFIDENCE, AS EFFECTIVE EMOTIONS
  THEY EXPERIENCE DURING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN
  HIGHER EDUCATION.

22
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

• FUTURE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO IDENTIFY NEW
  INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES THAT CAN FULFILL NEW
  EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, NAMELY, HOW TO
  ACADEMICALLY DEVELOP THE INTELLIGENCE OF BOTH
  DOMAINS.
• ON-LINE INSTRUCTION SHOULD VISUALLY MANIPULATE
  THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN, TO BRING OPTIMAL LEARNING
  EMOTIONS ON-LINE, AND MERGE THE INTELLIGENCE OF
  EACH DOMAIN FOR HIGH ACHIEVEMENT EFFORTS THAT
  STUDENTS ARE EAGER TO PERFORM.

23
Emotional Intelligence WHAT IN THE WORLD IS IT?

• Emotions are an additional intelligence that
  along with cognition conveys information about
  objects of perception. Emotional intelligence
  is expressed in feelings, images, colors,
  movement, sounds, symbols that augment cognitive
  understanding. Human emotions express a common
  meaning that is understandable by everyone (and
  so can be tested by researchers). Yet emotions
  deliver information that is uniquely personal for
  each individual, and may especially enrich
  thinking if encouraged to participate in
  complex higher level reasoning for abstract
  problem-solving (as the results of this study
  suggest).

24
REFERENCES

• For books, journal articles, dissertation, and
  other references used in this study, please
  contact
• edison2001_at_earthlink.net
• Or, go on-line to PsychLit and search for
  emotional intelligence journal articles by
  Professors Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer.