EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
ENGAGING THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN
FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY
IN DISTANCE AND DISTRIBUTED
HIGHER EDUCATION
WHY ENGAGE THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN?
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@Yale.edu or access the professional
healthcare website mhs.com
My research using the MSCEIT, V.2
detected a tendency for
undergraduates who understand
and manage emotions to have
higher GPAs.
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 p<.01
level (2-tailed).
GPA also correlated significantly with Managing
Emotions at r = .314, which is significant at the
p<.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.
INSIDE THE PEARSON CORRELATION:
Understanding Emotions
GPA 3.6 to 4.0
GPA 3.0 to 3.59
GPA Below 3.0
Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score = 113
Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score = 111
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
GPA 3.0 to 3.59
GPA Below 3.0
Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score = 106
Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score = 104
Mean MSCEIT, V.2 score = 97
Note the 9-point scores-difference in Managing Emotions
for higher GPAs versus lower GPAs.
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?)
The MSCEIT, V.2 TEST-TAKERS
In this study, 15 emotional intelligence ability tasks were
tested and scored for a special sample of 61 highachieving undergraduates who took the MSCEIT, V.2 online 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.
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.
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
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook II: Affective Domain.
Bloom’s 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).
APPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PEDAGOGY
IN DISTANCE AND DISTRIBUTED HIGHER EDUCATION
PAYING ATTENTION
BLOOM’S 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
SIMPLE AWARENESS OF
THE LEARNING STIMULUS
WITHOUT COGNITION
WILLINGNESS TO
RECEIVE
THE LEARNING STIMULUS
SATISFACTION
IN RESPONDING
CONTROLLED OR ‘SELECTED’
ATTENTION
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)
TOWARDS A NEW TAXONOMY
WHAT EMOTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE
FOR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?
CAN ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION
ENGAGE THE TWO DOMAINS?
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’
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.
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.
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).
REFERENCES
 For
books, journal articles, dissertation,
and other references used in this study,
please contact:
 edison2001@earthlink.net
 Or,
go on-line to PsychLit and search for
emotional intelligence journal articles by
Professors Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer.