Emotional Intelligence Training, Intrinsic Motivation, and Academic Achievement in High School Classroom: A Proposed Study

Suyeon Lee

I'd like to share the first self-directed learning project (Kohn project). Emotional Intelligence is what I am the most passionate about, and I believe EI can be used in Educational Psychology arena as well.

In chapter 11 of Punished by Rewards (1993), Kohn emphasizes the importance of removing rewards in classroom, because they do not serve their alleged purpose. According to Kohn, there are three reasons grades are given: 1) they motivate students to perform better, 2) they enable teachers to rate and sort students on the basis of their performance, and 3) they let students know their weaknesses and strengths. However, in current educational system, grades do not serve these intentions. Grades and punishments discourage students by decreasing intrinsic motivation. Throughout the book, Kohn discusses how extrinsic motivation (e.g., grades, praise, and punishments) can be detrimental to students by decreasing intrinsic motivation to learn. On the other hand, Kohn believes the best educational outcome can result from students to be intrinsically motivated. Teachers focus too much on grades and sorting students in regard to their grades, which makes education inefficient. Also, grades themselves do not provide information on how students are doing and their strength and weaknesses. Grades should be removed, because they do not serve their original purposes, but, in fact, are detrimental for students to attain true education. Instead, students need to be encouraged to autonomously engage in discovering what they want to acquire, rather than passively learn them.

Nevertheless, Kohn advises that grades should not be removed instantaneously. In class, teacher-student rapport is the most important social relationship. Teachers should not make decision in education solely by themselves, but should compromise with students’ requests. Therefore, without consulting with students about removing grades, students might have difficulty adjusting their attitude toward education and be demotivated without any rewards. Also, as Kohn highlights, eliminating rewards by itself does not guarantee true education. Although the rewards and punishments that center extrinsic motivation and hinder intrinsic motivation must be removed, it is also essential to create the circumstances that assist intrinsic motivation. The current study proposes an Emotional Intelligence (EI) training design that would accentuate intrinsic motivation and accomplish academic achievement.

According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), humans have a natural psychological necessity to function autonomously. Humans part natural yearning to decide actions liberally and to act in accordance with our developing interests or core values. Deci and Ryan (1985) identified four separate motivations: external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic (see Table 1). Sheldon and Elliot (1998) examined this idea using the perceived locus of causality method (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995) and found that autonomous goals, which originate from developing interests (intrinsic) or core values (identified), were more predictive of greater effort and better goal achievement than controlled goals, which are presumed to arise from internal obligations (introjected) or external rewards (external).

Prior studies have examined the relationship between EI and self-actualization in order to explain whether individuals with high levels of EI also have a greater sense of self. EI can predict human’s overall ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is dependent on factors such as a well-developed sense of identity through perceiving, facilitating, understanding and regulating one’s emotions (Mayer,Salovey & Caruso, 2003). Thus, the realization of one’s full potential seems to require an understanding of the things that are naturally interesting to humans. By knowing ourselves, we are capable of setting self-motivated goals which, when supported by good emotional regulation, allow us to approach the self-actualized state (Spence, Oades & Caputi, 2004).

Spence et al. (2004) conducted a research having 95 undergraduate psychology students in order to examine the relationship among the EI, intrinsic motivation, and self-actualization. Individuals who reported high levels of trait EI also constructed more congruent, self-integrated personal goal systems. Participants who scored highly on trait EI showed a tendency to set more autonomous strivings (intrinsic) whereas participants with low trait EI scores showed a tendency to set more controlled strivings (external). Spence and his colleagues concluded that high trait EI corresponds with a greater sense of that which is personally salient, therefore resulting in a greater integration of important aspects of the self into personal goals.

 In order to reach self-actualization state, an individual needs to be self-aware and self-regulatory. Zimmerman’s review (1990) shows that a self-regulated learning is a predictor of academic achievement. Self-regulated learners are aware when they know a fact or possess a skill and when they do not. They view acquisition as a systematic and controllable process, and accept greater responsibility for their academic outcomes (Borkowski, Carr, Rellinger & Pressley, in press; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986, 1990). Self-regulated learners select, organize, or create advantageous learning environments for themselves. They could be distinguished from other students by their systematic use of motivation and their academic accomplishment (Zimmerman, 1990). Self-regulated students who have reached self-actualization state through having intrinsic motivation show more satisfaction and achievement academically.

Conducting a study with 1563 high school seniors, Ogundokun and Adeyemo (2010) found that EI and academic motivation were potent predictors associated with academic achievement. A hierarchical regression analysis was performed whereby emotional intelligence, intrinsic motivation and other independent variables were regressed on academic achievement. The interaction term of EI x intrinsic motivation made an independent significant contribution to academic achievement (β = .120, p<0.05). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic achievement was influenced by intrinsic motivation. Students who had higher EI scores and intrinsic motivation reported higher academic achievement. Developing previous studies further, the current study will examine if improved EI scores through EI training would predict better academic achievement.

The current study will adapt an EI training designed by Nelis et al. (2009) that is based on Mayer and Salovey’s four-branch model, which the current study will be examining as well. Nelis and her colleagues (2009) found that their designed training program had led to a significant improvement in emotion identification and emotion regulation. More importantly, these improvements remained significant for more than 6 months after the training, indicating that EI improvements through their training design were not only imminent, but also prolonged.

Within this context, the hypotheses of the current study are the following:

Hypothesis 1: The current study expects that EI can be improved through training.

Hypothesis 2: When EI, which is positively correlated with intrinsic motivation, is improved through training, it will predict better academic achievement.

Method

Participants

            Participants in the current study will be students of Mount Vernon High School in Mt. Vernon, OH. Age of participants will range from 13 to 19. Participants will be recruited by a researcher contacting the school. Participants will be informed of their rights and will be debriefed after the study. Participants will get compensated $10 for every hour they participate in the study.

Materials

Emotional Intelligence Measure. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). MSCEIT is an ability-based test designed to measure the four branches of the EI model: perceiving emotions, facilitating emotions, understanding emotions, and managing emotions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2003). MSCEIT consists of 141 items and takes 30-45 minutes to complete. In addition to the theoretical model, the test also contains an intermediary level in which the first two divisions are combined into an Experiential Area score and the second two divisions into a Strategic Area score. In addition, each branch is assessed through two subscales: Perceiving Emotions contains identifying emotions conveyed through facial expressions and abstract pictures; Using Emotions includes items referring to evaluating how certain moods may facilitate thinking processes and the comparison of emotions to sensations, such as color, light, and temperature; Understanding Emotions includes two subscales that refer to blending emotions and acknowledging how emotions may change and develop; Managing Emotions includes two subscales that refer to rating which emotional strategy would be most appropriate to manage emotions for oneself and with respect to using emotions in interpersonal relationships. All the 141 items included in the test are answered through a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all present/not at all effective) to 5 (very much present/effective) (Fiori et al., 2014).

The reliabilities of two ways of testing (general consensus and expert consensus scoring) are measured separately. The followed r measures are internal consistency reliabilities, retaining a split-half approach. The overall reliability of the test is r = .93 for general, and r = .91 for expert scoring, respectively. The reliability of the Perceiving Emotion branch scores are r = .91 (general consensus scoring) and r =. 90 (expert consensus scoring). The reliability of the Facilitating Emotion branch scores are r = .79 and .76, for general and expert scoring, respectively. The reliability of the Understanding Emotion branch scores are r = .80 and r = .77, for general and expert scoring, respectively. The reliability of the Managing Emotion branch scores are r = .83 and r = .81, for general and expert scoring, respectively (See Table 1.) (Brackett, & Mayer, 2003).

MSCEIT shows reasonable factorial validities with two oblique factors, reflecting Experiential EI – Perceiving and Using emotions, and Strategic EI – Understanding and Managing emotions. In addition, four-factor solution provides an excellent fit to the test. Also, MSCEIT show the highest discriminant validity with verbal and other intelligences among various EI test measures with r = .25. In addition, MSCEIT is the only measure with discriminant validity with The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale with r = .15 (Mayer, Salovey, &Caruso, 2004). 

            Academic Achievement. In order to attain measurements for academic achievement, researcher will acquire participants’ GPA from Mount Vernon High School. These grades will be participants’ mid-term and final grades of the semester. Although Kohn emphasizes on the importance of eliminating grades, as of now, GPA is the most common way to determine academic achievement. Therefore, current study will use participants’ GPA as a measurement.

Procedure

Phase 1. Participants’ EI will be measured with MSCEIT. Experimental group will take normal classes and also join in the training program provided by the experimenter. Control group will be solely taking normal classes provided by the school. Each group will be randomly assigned.

Training. The current study will adapt a French EI training design introduced by Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, and Hansenne (2009). The intervention will be modified to best be suitable for the participants. The training will be held in the time period between the school’s prearranged mid-term and final exams.

The EI training will consist four sessions of two and half hours over a 4-week period. Each session will be at a 1-week interval. This interval will allow participants to apply what will be taught during sessions in their daily lives. During the training program, techniques to enhance the EI, especially emotional regulation will be instructed. The content of each session will be based on short lectures, role-plays, group discussions, etc. The participants will also be provided with a personal diary in which they will have to report daily emotional experience. These emotional experiences will have to be analyzed in the theory learned in class. Look at Appendix to see the outline of the entire training program.

            Phase 2. Then, participants will be asked to get their EI measured again with MSCEIT. Also, the experimenter will gather information from the school of each participant of his or her mid-term and final grades in order to measure whether he or she shows academic achievement.

Expected Results

To test hypothesis 1 – the EI scores will be improved through emotional intelligence training, 2X2 factorial ANOVA will be used with variable 1 being time of EI measure test (pre and post) and variable 2 being the EI training status (normal class or normal class + EI training). The hypothesis will be supported if the experimental group, which will take normal classes and also go through EI training, shows significant improvement on EI scores of MSCEIT measure than the control group, which will solely take normal school classes. Figure 1 shows the expected results. Because normal school classes are not specifically designed to improve EI, and participants from the experimental group had gone through EI training, expected finding will suggest that through EI training, participants are able to improve the EI scores.

To test hypothesis 2 – when EI, which is positively correlated with intrinsic motivation, is improved through training, it will predict better academic achievement, Chi-Square test will be used. Only results of participants whom had shown improvement on their EI scores at post-training time from both control and experimental groups will be assessed for this hypothesis test. The relation of EI improvement and success in academics will be examined. In order to find academic achievement, the difference between participants’ mid-term and final grades will be used. For instance, if a participant has a higher final grade than mid-term grade, he or she will be considered to have achieved academics. The hypothesis will be supported if improved EI is significantly correlated with successful academic achievement. The expected findings will suggest that with improved EI through EI training can predict successful academic achievement.

Discussion

Following Kohn’s advice in his book, the purpose of the current study is to find a method that would replace rewards in order to have high academic achievement with accentuating intrinsic motivation. If both hypotheses are supported, expected results will suggest that EI scores can be improved through EI training, and improved EI scores can predict success of academic achievement. The current study will develop previous studies further in order to see the EI training and it’s benefit in academic achievement. As Sheldon and his colleagues (1995, 1998) found out, students who had approached self-actualization state by having intrinsic motivation rather than having external striving, showed greater academic achievement. According to Spence and his colleagues (2004), intrinsic motivation positively correlates with the EI and both intrinsic motivation and the EI are predictors of high academic achievements. Therefore, the current study predicts to find that a better EI score through EI training would contribute to greater academic achievement, and the current expected findings will support the hypothesis.

The current research will provide a novel design of EI training, which positively correlates with intrinsic motivation and is a powerful predictor of academic achievement. Nevertheless, the current research design contains a major limitation. The measurement that will be used for academic achievement can be controversial. According to Kohn, grades should be eliminated. However, as of now, the most common measurement for academic achievement is grades. For future studies, researchers should find a more apt measurement for academic achievement.

References

Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., Pressley, M. (in press). Self-regulated cognition:                               Interdependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol                     (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking: Review of research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum                           Associates, Inc.

Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of                         competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,                 29, 1147-1158.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional                     abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of                     emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 780-795.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.                  New York: Plenum Press.

Fiori, M., Antonietti, J.-P., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., & Rossier, J. (2014). What               Is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Good for? An Evaluation Using Item                   Response Theory. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98827.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and               other bribes (pp. 198-227). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

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., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence                 with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.

Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional                                 intelligence: (How) is it possible?Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 36-41.

Ogundokun, M. O., & Adeyemo, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and academic achievement:                The moderating influence of age, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The African Symposium,                10(2), 127-141.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining                  reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1988). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous                and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social              Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546-557.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1988). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality                          integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 68, 531-543.

Spence, G., Oades, L. G., & Caputi, P. (2004). Trait emotional intelligence and goal self-integration:             important predictors of emotional well-being? Personality and Individual Differences, 37,                   449-461.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An                                           Overview. Educational Psychologist,25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing           student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23,              614-628.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning:                     Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational                 Psychology, 82, 51-59. 

Figure 1. Emotional Intelligence (EI) scores of MSCEIT of participants of pre and post time from EI training of both control group – taking normal classes, and experimental group – taking normal classes and also going through presented EI training are illustrated.

Appendix. Details on the EI training intervention (Nelis et al., 2009)

Session 1: Understanding emotions

• ·      Role-play illustrating the importance of emotions and EI.
• ·      Introductions/Welcome/Explanation of the sessions and the use of the personal diary.
• ·      Explanation of key concepts, including emotions, emotional intelligence, etc.
• ·      Summary and homework*.

Session 2: Identifying emotions

• ·      Review of previous session and homework.
• ·      Identifying one’s emotions using three doors: Theory and practice.
• ·      Identifying others’ emotions through facial expression decoding.
• ·      Identifying others’ emotions: Asking the right question and empathy.
• ·      Communication.
• ·      Summary and homework*.

Session 3: Expressing and using emotions

• ·      Review of previous session and homework.
• ·      How to express emotions: facts à emotions à need à positive solutions.
• ·      Role-play
• ·      Using the power of positive emotions: how to improve one’s positive feelings
• ·      Using emotions to solve problems: The emotional roadmap.
• ·      Summary and homework*.

Session 4: Managing emotions

• ·      Review of previous session and homework.
• ·      Coping strategies and their effectiveness: Theory and group discussion.
• ·      Positive reappraisal: Role-play and drill.
• ·      Mind-body connections and relaxation exercises.

·      Summary/ Questions/ Evaluation.*[1]

---

[1] *Homework and evaluation are not to be graded. Following Kohn’s advice, the current study design is to accentuate intrinsic motivation through Emotional Intelligence training and to achieve academic success, not to grade participants.