Does the use of specific Emotional
Intelligences help inform learning?
Andre Vermaut, 2009/2010
Chantry High School
ABSTRACT
The study used a fast-tracked Year 9 Science group of 25 learners1.
Each learner completed a recognised Emotional Intelligences
questionnaire to ascertain their preferred learning style(s)2. The results
from this questionnaire were used to ascribe each learner a specific
emotional intelligence group where ‘like’ individuals would be able to
work together3. Each group was asked to design, plan, prepare and
perform a 30 minute ‘lesson’ on a supplied scientific topic from the
curriculum4. Full lesson plans (minus information related to SEN
requirements or other ‘confidential’ data) were required from each
group, with the plan designed to highlight key tasks related to the
groups’ specific emotional intelligences. The study was designed to
judge the relative abilities and learning styles of the learners in their
‘educator’ roles, rather than the response from the remaining learners
as ‘audience’. A second questionnaire5 was given to each learner after
the sessions to ascertain their personal feelings on the success (or
otherwise) of the specific emotional intelligences lessons.
1
See Appendix I
http://www.bgfl.org/bgfl/custom/resources_ftp/client_ftp/ks3/ict/multiple_int/questions/questions.cfm
Student results and radial charts available on hard copy
3
See Appendix II
4
Not on digital copy
5
See Appendix III
2
Background:
The class 9CSK were originally chosen for this study for a variety of reasons,
not least of which was the good relationship we share in the classroom. This
was a necessity, I believe, in that the tasks they were to be given required that
all learners felt comfortable in performing both in front of not only myself as
subject teacher, but their peers. The potential for embarrassment or working
‘outside a comfort zone’ was high – a relatively stress free and productive
working learning environment was therefore paramount.
The class as a group are bright, high-achieving students (in the main); one of
three groups given the opportunity to fast-track the Core GCSE science
course during their Year 9 lessons. This system requires an entire GCSE to
be completed (and officially examined) before Year 10, not only with the
pressures of no preparatory Key Stage 3 completion, but with a reduced time
allocation from the normal 3x 100 minute lessons for Science per week at Key
Stage 4, to the Key Stage 3 quota of 2x 100 minute lessons. An additional
issue was the possibility of these selected learners not yet being emotionally
or even academically mature enough at 13/14 years of age to embark on a full
GCSE course. However, the challenge has been met admirably by almost all
involved and each learner embraced the concept and implications of the study
with an open mind, fully willing to see what may be revealed.
The idea of Emotional Intelligences and varied Learning Styles has been with
us for many years, although how well this has been explained to the learners
and subsequently integrated into the (conscious, explicit and overt) structure
of their own lessons is less apparent. This study was designed around the
concept of allowing the specific Emotional Intelligences to be utilised much
more obviously, not by myself as class teacher, but by the students
themselves, giving far more ownership of the these ‘labels’ to the very people
at which they are aimed. A recognised assessment questionnaire was taken
by all learners involved, a series of questions designed to focus their
thoughts, actions and ideas towards a specific (or very small group) of
Emotional Intelligence areas. The summary of each questionnaire was a
radial chart for each learner, displaying the relative ‘scores’ in every one of the
8 Emotional Intelligences covered by the assessment (Linguistic, Logical,
Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Musical, Visual/Spatial, Naturalistic and
Kinaesthetic). While the majority of learners had an obvious ‘main style’, in
some case 2 (or more rarely 3) styles were of equal or near equal value. To
ensure that the group sizes were as even sized as possible, where necessary
or appropriate ‘second highest’ scores were used to allocate Emotional
Intelligence groups, although this was kept to a minimum. Even where this
was required, the choices were still highly reflective of the learner’s specific
learning style.
Each group was then assigned a topic from the Core GCSE syllabus,
although there was some negotiation and choice inherent in the allocation of
these topics where possible. All areas were open to group selection and only
when 2 or more groups requested the same topic were discussions or my
personal input required.
The groups were asked to produce a full lesson plan (based on the older style
pro forma as the study was begun before the introduction of the current CDIO
template). Details of these requirements and methods of completion were
supplied by myself in the form of an exemplar lesson plan, with every section
discussed and explained. This was an area that the learner’s found
particularly difficult and yet proved very effective in getting them to understand
the complexities of modern education and the thought that goes into the
preparation and execution of everyday lessons – this was a real eye-opener
to some.
Every Emotional Intelligence group was also supplied with secondary
information that detailed what their chosen style meant, examples of style
specific activities and hints and tips for the planning of their lessons. The
lessons themselves were to last only 30mins, although they would adhere to
the basic three-part structure of Starter, Main and Plenary. The tasks and
activities each group included in these lessons was to be completely at the
discretion of the group concerned and yet must focus (although not
exclusively, due to the difficulties of linking to the course material) around their
allocated Emotional Intelligence styles. Hand-outs, worksheets and the like
were to be designed by the groups and given to myself in advance of their
lesson so that copies could be made.
Early in the year, after the learners had been assigned their respective
Emotional Intelligence styles, each group was given one class-based session
(to be used for planning and design, with key information gathering) and one
IT-based session (for PowerPoint creation and/or resources design and
information research) to prepare their chosen lessons. Groups were given a
date (approximately 2 weeks in advance) on which they would present their
lessons. This was done in a mostly volunteer/random order although efforts
were made to avoid clashes with those ‘normal’ lessons that I would be giving
that may include similar or over-lapping subject content. Some lessons were
video-recorded and copies of all materials were handed in to myself either
prior to, or at the start of, each learner-led lesson. The learners understood
that my input during these sessions would be minimal and that they would be
‘acting teacher’ during their presentations. Due to the need for me to take
notes during these sessions, not all lessons were recorded, although a fair
spread of highlights across a number of dates was made.
Finally, a discussion was held after each lesson with the class as a whole, to
point out those elements that worked well, perhaps not so well and those
parts that did not meet the original brief. Each learner was then given a
second questionnaire to help them summarise, on a 1-10 scale, various
elements of the study, where 1 represented complete disagreement with a
statement and 10 represented complete agreement. A section was included
for any further comments to be recorded.
Results and Conclusions:
Almost without exception, the inclusion of relevant and appropriate learning
objectives proved to be a major obstacle to the groups. While they were
usually linked to the subject content, often the focus of these objectives was
not met within the parameters of the prepared lessons. The feedback seemed
to concentrate around the idea that they were so concerned about including
all the information they wanted into the main body of the lesson, that the
objectives became a summary of content rather than a statement of intent. It
is interesting that this mirrors some of the issues faced by staff generally
during the early CPD sessions regarding the best ways to use learning
objective/outcomes. Accordingly, the quality of the learner’s objectives
noticeably improved from lesson to lesson as feedback after each session
added to their understanding and knowledge of what makes a good or bad
learning objective. Subsequently, comments have arisen in my own lessons
whereby students have expressed a greater understanding of ‘why’ certain
words are used rather than others – if nothing else, this study has added
value to that aspect of my teaching!
The consensus regarding the lessons themselves, is that the majority of
learner’s enjoyed the experience, felt that they had learned some valuable
skills from the process and would not be against doing something similar in
the future.
The second questionnaire given to all involved highlighted some further pints
worth discussing.
Question 1:
Did you agree with the result of the emotional intelligence questionnaire
you took at the start of the study?
This resulted in an average score of 6.4, suggesting that in most cases the Emotional
Intelligence did indeed match the expectations that the learners had of their own preferred
learning style. This number was higher when it was explained that in cases where a learner
received more than one favoured style, a mixture of these would offer a more realistic
summary than focussing on just one. Only 2 learners fervently disagreed with their results,
despite peers telling them that they felt the results were accurate!
Question 2:
Did you find that the people in your group shared similar ideas, thought
processes or ways of working with you?
With an average score of 7.4 (and no value below a 5), the learners felt that there was a
strong correlation between a personal learning style and the ways in which those with similar
styles went about tackling a problem or coming up with similar ideas and approaches to a
task. Ironically, the group that agreed with this the most was the group sharing the
Intrapersonal Emotional Intelligence, a rather paradoxical result for sure.
Question 3:
Was it easy to find specific tasks that related to the Emotional
Intelligence to integrate into the lesson plan you had for your group?
This question resulted in one of the lowest scores (5.5), suggesting and perhaps confirming,
that issues faced by staff in including a wide range of specific learning styles into a standard
lesson is a difficult problem to routinely overcome, especially as the very nature of some
subject content opposes some or most of these learning styles. An issue I noticed personally
when watching these lessons, is that of all the requirements made clear to the learners at the
start of the study, the use of specific learning style activities was the area most consistently
below par. Often the tasks would be obvious in their ‘tacked on’ nature, with comments from
the learners ranging from the fact that it was just impossible to get some information across in
a way that utilised a particular Emotional Intelligence, to concerns that better systems had to
be ignored simply to fit in a specific activity.
Question 4:
By using specific ‘group relevant’ tasks in your lesson, did you find the
topics more accessible and/or easier to understand?
With an average score of 6.8 it could be argued that, in the main, those
activities that matched the specific Emotional Intelligence of the group offered a slight
advantage in accessing and incorporating the key ideas and themes of a topic. This study
would need to be run again with the same groups using a low match Emotional Intelligence;
however, to compare the responses and results with a learning style they are less
comfortable with.
Question 5:
How easy did you find it to include the Emotional Intelligence specific
tasks into your group lesson plan?
This questions links to earlier comments regarding the difficulty in actually incorporating a
specific task into a general lesson. With an average of 5.5, the suggestion is that the learners
found this more troublesome than other aspects of the study.
Question 6:
Did you find that you were in any way ‘held back’ by being told that you
should avoid tasks in a different Emotional Intelligence?
This question received the lowest average score of 5.4 and suggests that this didn’t appear to
be an issue one way or the other, although as many groups failed to include a high number of
specific activities, perhaps this requires further study and a stricter handling of what must be
included in each lesson to ensure that other styles were less heavily relied upon.
Question 7:
Did you notice a difference in the ways in which you could access the
other topics from other groups, dependent on Emotional Intelligence
type?
With an average score of 5.7 the results suggest that the different learning styles had a
minimal impact on the ease or degree to which ‘audience’ members felt they could access the
subject content being delivered, regardless of type.
Question 8:
Would you like more activities in your lessons that target specific
Emotional Intelligence styles, even if they weren’t your own type?
The score of 7.1 appears to be at odds with the previous question where the learners felt that
learning styles had virtually no impact on their learning. Perhaps this higher score relates
more to a desire for variety in general, rather than specifically more Emotional Intelligencedriven variety.
Question 9:
Do you agree that a person can learn more effectively by certain
Emotional Intelligence styles than others?
Again, a rather contradictory result of 7.6 showing that the majority of learners believed that
some Emotional Intelligences were more appropriate or effective for some people than others.
On the one hand, this adds credence to the intent of the study and legitimises the work put
into the creation of certain tasks and activities that focuses around a given learning style. On
the other hand, the learners were tasked with ‘creating and presenting’ a lesson in their own
style, not ‘learning’ by it. As the audience, in effect, had 7 variations of the standard lesson,
each prioritising a specific Emotional Intelligence, it would be fairer to say that variety leads to
a more rounded academic experience, even when elements of this experience may not
exactly mould to an individual’s specific learning style. Future studies may take a core
audience group of mixed Emotional Intelligences and perform a series of ‘blinds’ whereby
lessons will focus upon a specific learning style, but this will not be made clear to the
audience until after all lessons have been performed. The ‘audience’ would be required to
rank the lessons in order of effectiveness for them and see if there is a correlation between
those lessons that matched or did not match their own personal learning styles. Due to the
inherent differences in subject content and challenge, this would be a very difficult study to
both standardise and analyse.
Question 10:
Would you rather learn by a specific Emotional Intelligence type
or by a wide range and mixture of different Emotional
Intelligence types?
This final question, while not following the standard 1-10 scale, was perhaps the most telling:
the vast majority of learners indicated that they would prefer a lesson that contained a wide
range of activities and tasks rather than having any one specific Emotional Intelligence
‘running the show’. These are sentiments that I believe we would all subscribe to and indeed
in the main strive for. It cannot be overlooked that even when an entire topic was presented in
a specific Emotional Intelligence style, the majority of learners found little to no difference
from lesson to lesson with regards the ease to which they could access the core subject
information. True, the lessons were presented by those with little experience in the art of
teaching (although a fantastic effort was made by all, it must be recognised), and within these
lessons there was a wide range of effectiveness demonstrated. However, further study would
certainly be required to elucidate a definitive conclusion and one that would require a
considerable investment of time that was impossible to achieve with a cohort of brave and
willing, and yet heavily time-pressured Year 9s with the threat of their Science GCSEs
stalking them a full 12 months earlier than was expected!
APPENDIX I
9CSK.
Jade Aldred
Ryan Birchfield
Chloe Bird
Olivia Bromley
Luke Campbell
Gianluca Cannone
Jamie Clarke
Gerson Dias
Gemma Garnham
Elisha Girling
Aaron Hammond
Ellen Horn
Zenn Itani
Cameron Laws
Mark Macey
Brandon Mayes
Kirsty McGill
Jordan Parker
Lauren Patterson
Paul Tatum
Amy Taylor
George Turner
Joseph Welham
Levi Williams
Zoe Wright
APPENDIX II
LINGUISTIC GROUP
Topic: B2 (e) Adapt to Fit
Gemma/Luke/George
LOGICAL GROUP
Topic: C1 (b) Food Additives
Amy/Gianluca/Brandon
INTERPERSONAL GROUP
Topic: P1 (a) Warming Up
Levi/Jade/Cameron
INTRAPERSONAL GROUP
Topic: B1 (b) What’s for lunch?
Olivia/Zoe/Joe
MUSICAL GROUP
Topic: C1 (a) Cooking
Jordan/Lauren/Aaron/Elisha
VISUAL/SPATIAL GROUP
Topic: C2 (h) Explosions and Catalysts
Mark/Zenn/Gerson
NATURALISTIC GROUP
Topic: B2 (b) Grouping Organisms
Paul/Jamie/Ellen
KINAESTHETIC GROUP
Topic: P2 (d) Nuclear Radiation
Abi/Ryan/Kirsty
APPENDIX III
Post Lesson Questionnaire.
Read the following questions carefully and use a number from 1 to 10 to
describe your feelings on each part (where 1 is completely DISAGREE, and
10 is completely AGREE).
There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, so please answer all questions
honestly. There is an ‘Additional Comments’ section at the end for you to
expand any ideas, feelings or answers you may have.
Thank you for taking part.
Question
Did you agree with the result of the emotional
intelligence questionnaire you took at the start of the
study?
Did you find that the people in your group shared
similar ideas, thought processes or ways of working
with you?
Was it easy to find specific tasks that related to the
Emotional Intelligence to integrate into the lesson
plan you had for your group?
By using specific ‘group relevant’ tasks in your
lesson, did you find the topics more accessible
and/or easier to understand?
How easy did you find it to include the Emotional
Intelligence specific tasks into your group lesson
plan?
Did you find that you were in any way ‘held back’ by
being told that you should avoid tasks in a different
Emotional Intelligence?
Did you notice a difference in the ways in which you
could access the other topics from other groups,
dependent on Emotional Intelligence type?
Would you like more activities in your lessons that
target specific Emotional Intelligence styles, even if
they weren’t your own type?
Do you agree that a person can learn more
effectively by certain Emotional Intelligence styles
than others?
Would you rather learn by a specific Emotional
Intelligence type or by a wide range and mixture of
different Emotional Intelligence types?
Additional Comments:
DISAGREE
AGREE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10