Supporting the Development of Emotional Intelligence Competencies ...

Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 79–95

Supporting the Development of Emotional Intelligence Competencies to Ease the Transition from Primary to High School P. Qualter*, H. E. Whiteley, J. M. Hutchinson and D. J. Pope University of Central Lancashire, UK 10P.Qualter 23 [email protected] 00000March 2007Ltd in Practice Educational 10.1080/02667360601154584 CEPP_A_215385.sgm 0266-7363 Original Taylor 2007 and & Article Francis (print)/1469-5839 Francis Psychology (online)

This study aims to explore (1) whether pupils with high emotional intelligence (EI) cope better with the transition to high school; and (2) whether the introduction of an intervention programme to support the development of EI competencies can increase EI and self-worth, and so ease the negative effects of transition. Results suggest that pupils with high/average levels of EI cope better with transition in terms of grade point average, self-worth, school attendance and behaviour than pupils with low EI. In addition, pupils with low baseline EI scores responded positively to the intervention programme, although a negative change was noted in pupils with high baseline emotional intelligence. Results are considered in terms of implications for educational practice.

The Effects of Transition to High School The negative effects of transition from primary to high school have been widely documented (Anderson, Jacobs, Schramm, & Splittberger, 2000; Galton, Morrison, & Pell, 2000): for example, there is evidence that the transition to high school has a negative effect on pupils’ self-concept (Fenzel, 2000; Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992; Watt, 2000), on their subjective evaluation in core curriculum subjects (Elias, Gara, & Ubriaco, 1985; Simmons, Burgeson, Carlton-Ford, & Blyth, 1987), and overall in terms of their grade point average (Gutman & Midgley, 2000). Most pupils also experience a degree of anxiety and/or depression (Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). In addition, Eccles, Lord, Roeser, Barber and Hernandez-Jozefowicz (1997) emphasise that individual differences in transition *Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 2HE, UK. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0266-7363 (print)/ISSN 1469-5839 (online)/07/010079–17 © 2007 Association of Educational Psychologists DOI: 10.1080/02667360601154584

80 P. Qualter et al. adjustment can influence future adolescent development: for example, an initial decrease in grades for a student who has poor coping skills or weak social support could lead to a negative self-concept that begins to undermine the student’s academic motivation. Reduced motivation, in turn, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to subsequent further declines in performance (Fenzel, 2000) and, perhaps, to eventual disengagement from school (Dryfoos, 1990; Eccles et al., 1993; Harter & Connell, 1984). In contrast, Wampler, Munsch and Adams (2002) argue that an initial drop in grades may positively affect those students with greater personal and cognitive resources, as the students’ self-perceptions of academic competence may be challenged in a way that motivates them to work harder. Students who have the necessary skill, knowledge, and work habits are able to draw upon these resources in order to successfully recover from falling grades (Berndt & Mekos, 1995). Subsequent improvement in grades not only reinforces their generally positive self-perception but also fuels their academic motivation (Wampler et al., 2002). Wampler et al. (2002) also argue that teacher perceptions of pupils may impact on teacher–child interactions and, consequently, the amount of time and effort that teachers invest in supporting and encouraging an individual. They argue that a student whose grades drop initially and then rise will be seen more positively by teachers than a student whose grades continue to drop or stay low. Changes in the social experience of adolescents during this transition period have also been considered. Pellegrini and Long (2002) and Pellegrini (2002) have demonstrated that the move to high school brings, along with the changing academic expectations, new social roles. In these studies, it was suggested that bullying and aggression increased with transition from primary to high school. Bullying, they argue, may be one way in which young adolescents manage peer and dominance relationships as they make the transition to new social groups and new social roles. Thus, the research confirms that the transition to high school brings changes that are likely to have a negative impact and that successful outcome relies, in part, on the coping strategies available to each individual student. The academic and social problems that adolescents encounter challenge these coping skills and are a main source of adolescent stress (Elias, 2001). Research also points towards areas for intervention: for example, if adolescents are helped to develop appropriate coping strategies, they may be better equipped to cope with the academic and social changes that accompany the transition process. An understanding of coping strategies can help to explain many of the negative changes that are observed at transition. The authors suggest that the notion of coping strategies fits well with the concept of trait emotional intelligence (EI), and it is possible that those adolescents high on trait EI are those who cope well with transition. Therefore, it may be the case that appropriate coping strategies can be developed through EI training and development programmes at school.

Emotional Intelligence and Transition

81

EI as a Predictor of Life and School Success: Implications for coping with transition According to Petrides, Fredrickson and Furnham (2004), trait EI is defined as ‘a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies’ (p. 278). Research, using this definition of EI, suggests it to be an important predictor in determining life and school success: for example, adolescents with high trait EI are happier than those with low trait EI (Furnham & Petrides, 2003) and are less likely to be depressed, hopeless or suicidal (Ciarrochi, Deane, & Anderson, 2002). Low trait EI has also been linked to low selfesteem and poor impulse control (Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002; Schutte et al., 1998, 2002); Schutte et al. (1998) and Engelberg and Sjoberg (2004) have suggested that trait EI makes significant contributions towards the prediction of emotional reactivity (related to aggression and coping). Thus, there is accumulating evidence to suggest that trait EI is linked explicitly to a range of factors that increase the likelihood of favourable outcomes in life. There is evidence to suggest that the coping mechanisms used by those adolescents high on trait EI are different to those scoring low on trait EI: for example, adolescents high on EI are less likely to have unauthorized absences or to be excluded from school (Petrides, Fredrickson, & Furnham, 2004), and are less likely to engage in tobacco, drug and alcohol consumption (Riley & Schutte, 2003; Trinidad & Johnson, 2002; Trinidad, Unger, Chou, & Johnson, 2004). In addition, there is research suggesting that EI is a factor in predicting academic success: for example, Petrides et al. (2004) report that trait EI, whilst having no influence on maths and science performance, moderates the effects of general ability on English and overall GCSE performance. Other research suggests that specific trait EI dimensions predict academic success among adolescents (Parker et al., 2004). In terms of interventions, it is useful to reframe the EI construct as perceived social and emotional competencies since the measures really assess these competencies. Indeed, Bar-On (1997), who developed a widely used measure of self-reported EI defines it as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). In summary, the research suggests that those high on EI are likely to respond to a stressful event, such as transition to high school, more effectively than those low on EI, as they are likely: (1) to use more appropriate coping strategies by not engaging in unauthorised school absence and/or poor behaviour (aggression) at school; (2) not experience the drop in self-esteem predicted by previous research; and (3) not experience the drop in grade point average (GPA) that would be expected during this period of transition.

Current Study The study reported here was carried out in collaboration with a high school in the north-west of England as part of a broader project designed to support pupil

82 P. Qualter et al. transition from Year 6 (the final year in primary school) to Year 7 (first year in secondary school) developed by the Lancashire Healthy Schools Programme in partnership with the Youth and Community Service. Earlier work with this school established that negative effects typically associated with transition were present: for example, in-depth interviews with 45 pupils revealed concerns about getting to know teachers, bullying, school clubs, homework, regrets at leaving behind their old school and friends, and worries about making new friends (Qualter & Whiteley, 2004). The overall aims of this study are to explore whether high levels of EI can moderate the effects of transition and whether it is possible to effect positive changes in EI through a school based intervention programme. Two specific questions are addressed: 1. Do adolescents high on EI, measured in terms of GPA, self-worth and a range of routinely-collected school attendance and behaviour records, cope better with the transition to high school? 2. Can the introduction of a programme designed to support the development of EI skills delivered in the first year of high school increase levels of EI and selfworth and, therefore, influence school based measures as listed above? Method Participants Two Year 7 cohorts (ages 11- to 12-years-old) from a high school in a rural district of north-west England, UK, participated in the study. There were 189 pupils in the 2002–2003 intake, of which data from only 169 pupils were collected at the two time points (Female: N = 72; Male: N = 97). There were 191 pupils in the 2003–2004 intake, with 170 pupils taking part in the study at both time points (Females: N = 94; Males: N = 76). The 2002–2003 intake acted as a control group as no EI awareness raising or intervention took place during that year. The 2003–2004 intake acted as an intervention group: they took part in activities designed to facilitate the development of coping strategies, especially in the domain of emotional intelligence. Teachers in this year also attended ‘EI awareness raising’ sessions. At entry to high school, the two cohorts did not differ in terms of ability as measured by three scales of the cognitive ability test (CAT, Lohman, Hagen, & Thorndike, 2003) as analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no differences on verbal: F(1, 339) = 7.81, p > .05; nonverbal: F(1, 339) = 4.25, p >.05; or quantitative: F(1, 339) = 5.06, p >.05 aspects of the CAT. Chi-square revealed no difference between the cohorts in gender distribution (χ2(1, N = 339) = 3.06, p > .05) and ANOVA revealed no difference in primary school teacher reports of internal or external behaviour problems (teacher–child rating scale, Hightower et al., 1986: internalizing: F (1, 297) = .01, p > .05; and externalizing: F (1, 297) = .02, p > .05).


83

Measures Emotional intelligence. The BarOn EQ-i:YV (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) measures the level of emotional and social functioning in children and adolescents. It consists of 60 items with five subscales: interpersonal; intrapersonal; stress management; adaptability; general mood. A total EQ score is also calculated and it is this score that was used in all analyses. A Positive Impression scale is included to identify those pupils who present an exaggerated positive impression, as well as a correction factor to adjust for a positive response bias. The measure also incorporates an inconsistency index which identifies inconsistent response styles. Eleven cases were eliminated from the study because of high inconsistency scores or positive bias. Self-concept. The self-perception profile for children (SPPC; Harter, 1985) is a 24item questionnaire designed to assess children’s domain specific judgments of their competence in five self-concept domains, and their feelings of global self-worth. The six subscales are: (a) scholastic competence; (b) social competence; (c) athletic competence; (d) physical appearance; (e) behaviour competence; and (f) global selfworth. The instrument has well-established validity and reliability (see Muris, Meesters & Fijen, 2003). School reports of concerns at the end of Year 7. At the end of the school year teachers record details of concerns regarding effort, amount of home study, concentration, and behaviour. The number of concerns raised by teachers for each pupil are entered into the school database and noted in their home reports. Academic performance at the end of Year 7. Students are graded at the end of each school year in each subject area. Subject teachers rank each child using a rating scale from 1–5, where 1 is ‘significantly above average’, 2 is ‘above average’, 3 is ‘average’, 4 is ‘below average’ and 5 is ‘significantly below average’. Their GPA (grade point average) across all subjects was used for analyses. Late registration, unauthorised absences, detentions and exclusions from school during Year 7. These data were available for all pupils across the two cohorts. However, as few pupils received a detention during Year 7 (14 across the two years of study), and there were no exclusions, no analyses were performed on these data. General ability. All pupils completed Raven’s standard progressive matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1990) which was used as a control variable. The test was conducted with whole classes of children according to the manual instructions and, to take account of age differences, results were recorded as a percentile score.

84 P. Qualter et al. Intervention Programme Prior to June 2003, EI-related competencies were not routinely taught within the school curriculum. In June 2003, all tutors attended an ‘EI awareness-raising’ session provided by the research team. The local authority and a team from the University of Central Lancashire provided training for tutors and for Year 10 pupils who acted as peer mentors for Year 7 pupils. The authority provided some of the materials for use in the intervention programme including: a book for each Year 7 pupil—Keep cool @ secondary school (see www.lhsp.org.uk/); a school specific book for each pupil—It’s cool at your school; ‘Cool cards’ for use by peer mentors; and support packs to help teachers in enabling pupils to engage with the resources. The booklets provide information and advice in a clear and user friendly way on a variety of transition-related issues, with many topics relating to socio-emotional skills that are encompassed within the concept of emotional intelligence: for example, friendships/relationships, bullying, caring for others, personal and family problems, self-esteem, and a ‘what if …’ section which addresses a whole range of worries and emotions. Peer mentors play the ‘Cool card’ games with their mentees once a week which involve discussions about feelings, e.g., ‘What could you do if school makes you feel sad or frightened?’ Tutors also support the programme through work in tutorials, by following a dedicated plan (developed by a team at the University of Central Lancashire) based on empirical and theoretical evidence about the development of EI competencies (see Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry & Samples, 1998; Battistich, Schaps, Watson & Soloman, 1996; Battistich, Soloman, Watson & Schaps, 1997; Greenberg, Kusche, Cook & Quamma, 1995; Zeidner, Roberts & Matthews, 2002). A copy of the materials developed by the team is available from the authors of this article upon request.

Overview of Study Procedures During September 2002, all Year 7 pupils who entered the high school that year completed the BarOn EQ-i:YV and the Harter self-perception profile. The pupils followed the normal school curriculum, where no sessions of EI skills were delivered. In June 2003, all pupils again completed the BarOn EQ-i:YV, the Harter selfperception profile and, in addition, the Raven’s matrices. Data on authorised/unauthorised absences, lateness, academic grades and teacher concerns were collected from the school database. In September 2003, the new intake of Year 7 pupils completed the BarOn EQi:YV and the Harter self-perception profile. From September 2003 to June 2004, these pupils were exposed to the programme detailed above. In June 2004, all Year 7 pupils completed the BarOn EQ-i:YV, the Harter self-perception profile and the Raven’s matrices. Data on authorised/unauthorised absences, lateness, academic grades and teacher concerns were again collected from the school database.


85

Results Results were analysed with regard to three levels of baseline EI. This allowed an exploration of whether children with a ‘high’, ‘average’ or ‘low’ initial level of EI cope better with transition, and whether these baseline groups respond differentially to the intervention. Baseline groups were determined by calculating total EI score (at Time 1) at one standard deviation above and below the mean. Thus, those who were classed as high on EI were those that scored between 62.92 and 74.92 on the BarOn at Time 1; those classified as average EI were those scoring between 49.33 and 62.91 on EI at Time 1; and those with low EI had a Total EI score of between 36.75 and 49.32 at Time 1. The original sample at Time 1 was 380. However, the number of participants was reduced at Time 2 because some participants had left the county and left no forwarding address, some students declined to take part at Time 2 (this was for various reasons: for example, not wanting to be taken away from the classroom activity, and simply saying they ‘didn’t want to’), some had high inconsistency scores on the EI measure, and some did not complete all questionnaires correctly. Analyses were conducted to compare Time 1 scores on all measures for pupils no longer participating at Time 2 and for those pupils remaining in the study at Time 2. No significant differences were revealed between these two groups. Therefore, we are reassured that the overall pattern of results would not have changed if all pupils had remained in the study. The remaining sample is divided as follows based on their total EI score as detailed above: intervention group 170 (high EI 22, average EI 120, low EI 28) and control group 169 (high EI 25, average EI 120, low EI 24) (see Table 1). The number of participants included in most analyses is 339 cases. In some instances, however, the number of participants whose data is included for analysis is below this and is reduced because some participants did not complete the whole battery of tests as they were absent on certain days of testing. Table 1.

Means (and standard deviations) for teacher concerns as a function of intervention group and baseline EIs Intervention group n = 170

Concerns about: Effort Home study Concentration Behaviour

Control group n = 169

High n = 22

Av n = 120

Low n = 28

High n = 25

Av n = 120

Low n = 24

.66 (1.43) .93 (1.56) .16 (.39) .65 (.78)

1.10 (1.88) 1.34 (2.03) .54 (1.30) 1.35 (2.34)

2.92 (2.35) 2.57 (2.84) .88 (1.73) 2.77 (2.98)

.66 (1.10) 1.12 (1.23) 1.70 (1.44) .40 (.76)

1.21 (1.79) 1.60 (2.04) 2.25 (2.50) .78 (1.57)

1.93 (2.60) 1.83 (2.37) 2.82 (3.08) .90 (2.13)

86 P. Qualter et al. Do Pupils Higher in EI Skills Cope Better with Transition? Concerns about effort, home study, concentration, and behaviour were analysed for both cohorts using a 2 (intervention group) x 3 (baseline EI group) MANCOVA, controlling for Raven’s. There was a main effect of intervention group (F(4,319) = 41.16, p < .001) qualified by a two-way interaction between baseline group and intervention group (F(8, 319) = 2.66, p = .007). Follow-up ANCOVAs revealed significant differences between the baseline EI groups on concerns about effort (F(2,324) = 6.87, p = .001), home study (F(2,324) = 4.37, p = .013) and behaviour (F(2,324) = 5.63, p = .004). Both the high and average EI groups attracted fewer teacher concerns for effort, home study and behaviour than the low EI group. There were also significant differences between the control and intervention groups on concerns about concentration (F(1,324) = 40.72, p < .001) and behaviour (F(1,324) = 10.86, p = .001), with teachers expressing fewer concerns about concentration but, surprisingly, more concerns about behaviour for all children in the intervention group (see Table 1). GPA, lateness and unauthorised absences at the end of Year 7 were analysed using a series of mixed 2 (Intervention vs. Control) x 3 (baseline EI group: Low vs. Average vs. High) ANCOVAs controlling for Raven’s. For the ANCOVA looking at GPA, there was a main effect of baseline group (F(2,325) = 6.43, p = .002) with both the high and average EI groups achieving a significantly better GPA (a lower score) than the low EI group (see Table 2). For late registration, analysis (with 2 and 330 degrees of freedom) revealed main effects of baseline EI group (F = 27.46, p < .001), and intervention group (F = 3.04, p = .049) which were qualified by a two-way interaction between baseline and intervention group (F = 3.22, p = .041). In the control cohort, the low EI group had significantly more late registrations than the high and average EI groups (high EI and average EI < low EI group), whilst the differences between the baseline groups for the intervention cohort were not significant. Furthermore, the low EI control group had significantly more late registrations than the low EI intervention group. Table 2. Mean grade point average, late registration and unauthorised absence (and standard deviations) for the control and intervention groups as a function of baseline EI Intervention group

Grade point average Late registration Unauthorized absence

Control group

High

Av

Low

High

Av

Low

2.53 (.67) .94 (1.43) .27 (1.28)

2.77 (.73) 1.25 (2.19) .45 (1.37)

2.98 (.76) 1.16 (2.13) .38 (1.55)

2.30 (.85) 2.30 (1.98) .59 (1.47)

2.68 (.88) 3.23 (4.28) .67 (1.78)

2.87 (.85) 5.57 (6.81) .53 (1.38)

Note: Note that higher score denotes lower GPA as rating scale is used by teaching, where 1 = significantly above average – 5 = significantly below average.


87

Analysis of unauthorised absences revealed no significant effects (see Table 2). Does the Intervention Programme Lead to Increased Levels of EI and Self-worth and Influence a Range of School-based Measures? Changes in EI and self-worth (measured by the SPPC) were analysed by means of a series of 2 (Time 1 vs. Time 2) × 2 (Intervention vs. Control group) × 3 (baseline EI: low, average, high) ANCOVAs controlling for general ability (Raven’s score). All reported mean scores have been adjusted taking account of Raven’s scores (with preadjusted standard deviations) and these can be seen in Tables 3 and 4 below. Post hoc analyses were conducted using Tukeys HSD or t-tests where appropriate (significance level of p < .05 used). EI Changes from Time 1 to Time 2 Analysis of total EI score at Time 1 and Time 2 revealed main effects of baseline group, intervention group and time (F(2, 320) = 195.21, p < .001; F(1, 320) = 6.85, p = .009; F(1, 320) = 11.96, p = .001, respectively) (see Table 3). These main effects were qualified by two, two-way interactions between intervention group and baseline group, and time and baseline group, and a three-way interaction (F(2, 320) = 6.51, p = .002; F(2, 320) = 34.31, p < .001 and F(1, 320) = 13.10, p < .001 respectively). For the control group, post hoc analyses revealed significant differences between the baseline EI groups at both Time 1 and Time 2 (high EI > average EI > low EI group), with no significant changes between Time 1 and Time 2. For the intervention group there were again significant differences between the EI groups at Time 1 (high EI > average EI > low EI group) but at Time 2, only the difference between the high and low groups remained significant. Whilst the low EI intervention group made significant progress from Time 1 to Time 2, the high EI group experienced a significant reduction in their EI level across time. Table 3.

Mean total EI (standard deviation) and change scores for the intervention and control groups as a function of time and baseline EI Intervention group

Baseline EI group

High Average Low

Time 1

Time 2

68.29 (3.30) 57.10 (3.72) 46.37 (2.69)

57.48 (3.95) 54.94 (5.47) 52.24 (6.69)

Change score

−10.81 −2.16 +5.87

Control group Time 1

Time 2

66.17 (2.66) 55.67 (3.68) 44.77 (3.76)

61.90 (8.84) 54.30 (6.32) 44.53 (5.03)

Change score

-4.27

−1.37 −0.24

88 P. Qualter et al.

Table 4. Subscales Change score

Scholastic

Means (and standard deviations) for self-worth subscales for the intervention and control groups as a function of time and baseline EI. Baseline group: total EI

High Average Low

Social

High Average Low

Athletic

High Average Low

Behaviour

High Average Low

Global

High Average Low

Physical appearance

High Average Low

Intervention group

Change score

Time 1

Time 2

3.07 (.50) 2.79 (.51) 2.45 (.63)

3.20 (.47) 2.89 (.42) 2.67 (.55)

+.13

3.29 (.57) 3.12 (.47) 2.77 (.61)

3.47 (.53) 3.21 (.47) 2.98 (.54)

+.18

3.08 (.79) 2.80 (.63) 2.55 (.91)

3.27 (.67) 2.85 (.67) 2.59 (.72)

+.19

3.39 (.46) 2.96 (.58) 2.74 (.56)

3.42 (.54) 3.12 (.46) 2.96 (.61)

+.03

3.44 (.70) 3.15 (.56) 2.81 (.53)

3.61 (.38) 3.22 (.49) 2.94 (.60)

+.17

3.10 (.63) 2.70 (.78) 2.60 (.76)

3.03 (.63) 2.74 (.68) 2.46 (.78)

-.07

+.10 +.22

+.09 +.21

+.05 +.04

+.16 +.22

+.07 +.13

+.04

−.14

Control group

Time 1

Time 2

2.90 (.60) 2.70 (.60) 2.35 (.66)

2.94 (.61) 2.70 (.60) 2.40 (.62)

+.04

3.18 (.66) 3.07 (.56) 2.91 (.78)

3.26 (.62) 3.05 (.59) 2.89 (.78)

+.08

2.93 (.85) 2.82 (.72) 2.57 (.73)

3.03 (.77) 2.80 (.74) 2.56 (.72)

+.10

3.07 (.63) 2.93 (.56) 2.77 (.62)

3.17 (.57) 2.88 (.58) 2.84 (.54)

+.10

3.27 (.50) 3.11 (.53) 2.93 (.61)

3.39 (.46) 3.07 (.53) 2.96 (.62)

+.12

2.69 (.77) 2.70 (.70) 2.68 (.78)

2.82 (.65) 2.66 (.73) 2.68 (.78)

+.13

— +.05

-.02

−.02

−.02 −.01

−.05 +.07

-.04 +.03

−.04 —


89

Self-worth Changes from Time 1 to Time 2 Six mixed design ANCOVAs controlling for Raven’s, were conducted to look at differences on the subscales of self-worth (See Table 4). All significant analyses are reported below. Scholastic competence. ANCOVA revealed a main effect of baseline group whereby the high EI group had higher levels of perceived scholastic confidence than the average EI group who, in turn, had higher perceived scholastic confidence than the low EI group (F(2,315) = 13.28, p < .001). There were also main effects of the intervention group (F(1,315) = 5.89, p = .016) and time (F(1,315) = 4.28, p = .039) which were qualified by a two-way interaction between time and intervention (F(1,315) = 10.89, p = .001). Post hoc analyses revealed that, whilst the control group made no progress between Time 1 and Time 2 (Means: Time 1 = 2.68, Time 2 = 2.68, t = .26, p = .795), the intervention group made significant progress across time (Mean: Time 1 = 2.78, Time 2 = 2.91, t = 3.68, p average EI > low EI).

90 P. Qualter et al. Physical appearance. There were no significant results for this measure. Discussion Accumulating research highlights the potential negative effects of transition from primary to high school (see Anderson et al., 2000; Galton et al., 2000). This study aimed to explore whether adolescents high on EI cope better with the transition to high school, and whether the introduction of a programme designed to support the development of EI skills and delivered in the first year of high school leads to increased levels of EI and self-worth. Ability to cope was evaluated in terms of a range of measures including teacher concerns about effort, home study and behaviour throughout the first year of high school (Year 7), grade point average across all subjects at the end of Year 7, and number of unauthorised attendances and ‘late arrivals’ during the year. Analyses support the notion that higher levels of EI facilitate a student’s ability to cope with transition. Both high and average EI groups received significantly fewer teacher concerns about effort, home study and behaviour than their peers with lower levels of EI. Similarly, both high and average EI groups achieved significantly better grades (GPAs) than the group with lower EI levels. In addition, the means for number of late registrations showed a progressive increase across high to average to low EI groups. The absence data did not reveal any differences across groups in relation to EI levels. Overall, five of the six measures of coping employed in this study endorse the view that higher (in this case high or average) EI skills support young adolescents in coping with the transition from primary to high school. These data are consistent with previous research which links high EI levels with academic success and successful coping with life events (see Petrides et al., 2004). The second aspect of this study aimed to examine whether an intervention focussed largely on EI development, and delivered in the first year of high school, would be successful in raising the EI levels of pupils. Measures of total EI and selfworth were used to examine this question (note that Bar-On & Parker, 2000, argue that self-worth underpins core EI competencies such as self-awareness, selfconfidence and self-management). The data were analysed in terms of high, average and low EI baseline levels (i.e., levels at the start of Year 7). Each of the baseline control groups showed a reduction in their mean EI at Time 2 and this is consistent with the evidence showing that transition is often associated with negative outcomes (Fenzel, 2000; Harter et al., 1992; Watt, 2000). Analyses of the EI data for intervention groups revealed a significant increase in EI scores across the year for the low baseline EI intervention group only. The levels of EI in the average and high baseline intervention groups both fell back (the high group by a significant amount). This drop in EI levels was unexpected and suggests that the intervention programme introduced into the school was not effective for those with already high levels of EI. Notably, however, their EI at Time 2 does remain above average.


91

In contrast to the total EI score, the analyses of the six subscales of the Harter selfworth measure provide support for the effectiveness of the intervention across the three baseline EI groups. This adds strength to the argument that school-based programmes can be effective in ameliorating the negative effects associated with transition (see Greene & Ollendick, 1993; Quayle, Dziurawiec, Roberts, Kane & Ebsworthy, 2001). For the subscales of scholastic and social competence there is clear evidence of greater improvement in the intervention group when compared to the control group. While there are no significant differences in gains in self-worth between control and intervention groups on the remaining four subscales (athletic, physical, appearance, behaviour and global), it may be argued that scholastic and social self-worth domains are most likely to provide protection against the academic and social challenges that face the young adolescent during transition. The analyses of data from the subscales of athletic competence, behavioural competence and global self-worth all confirmed a relationship between EI and self-worth measures whereby high EI groups had generally more positive self-perceptions in these areas than average EI groups who, in turn, scored higher than the low EI groups. These data are consistent with findings from Salovey et al. (2002) and Schutte et al. (2002), both of whom report links between low trait-EI and low self-esteem. Thus, while the intervention programme had only limited effectiveness in raising levels of EI and self-worth, it was the group most likely to be susceptible to the negative effects of transition (the low EI group) for whom the intervention was most effective. Given that this was the first year of implementation of the programme, these results are promising. Limitations The major limitation involves the research design. While the researchers cannot be faulted for the design flaws, since it was impossible to balance the requirements of rigorous experimental designs with the practicalities of the educational setting, there are several concerns. First, the control and experimental groups were not tested concurrently, which means that any changes in the school from 2002–2003 (different teachers, different classroom assistants, different curricula) are potential confounds. However, the school, as much as possible, kept these changes to a minimum. A second concern from the perspective of research design is the fact that the teachers themselves were part of the intervention programme. Thus, it is not possible to know whether the intervention changed the teachers, the pupils, or both. This becomes even more complicated by the fact that the teachers were not only part of the intervention programme, but the source of ratings that are subsequently used as dependent variables (school reports of concern, etc). A further concern when interpreting results is the phenomenon of regression towards the mean. Regression towards the mean is a statistical phenomenon where extreme high scores decrease on second measurement and extreme low scores increase; this can provide the illusion of benefit for low scorers. While it is possible that the pattern of change in the EI scores within the intervention group reflects

92 P. Qualter et al. regression to the mean (high scorers score less at Time 2 and low scorers score more), if the measures were subject to this phenomenon, then we would also expect to see the same pattern of results in the data for the control group. However, this is not the case; we are reassured that the improvement seen in the intervention group is more likely to reflect the effects of the intervention itself. The intervention involved multiple variables, so it is unknown which variables are necessary and sufficient to bring about change in the outcome variables; it might have been the inclusion of mentors, the teacher training, or the teaching of EI. Alternatively, there may be significant whole-school events prior to the administration of the questionnaires that we did not, or were unable to, control. Future Directions The findings reported here indicate that the problems of transition in children with low EI can, in part, be addressed by the introduction of an intervention programme which supports the development of EI skills. Whether the success of the intervention is due to an increase in a child’s individual EI skills or to a change in teacher understanding of the concept of EI (which impacts on their relationships with low EI children following a pattern similar to that described by Wampler et al., 2002) is unclear. It is also unclear why the intervention programme implemented here did not help those children already high in their EI skills to at least maintain those levels in spite of transition. The findings suggest that there may be a critical level of EI that serves to protect against the negative effects of transition: while the high and average baseline EI groups in both cohorts showed reduced mean levels of EI over the course of the academic year they, nevertheless, appeared to cope better with transition than their lower EI peers. The finding of a possible threshold level of EI above which levels are less likely to impact on success supports claims put forward by Brackett, Mayer and Warner (2004) that there may be a minimum level of EI that is necessary for good judgement in social situations. Further research is needed to address these issues. Another finding deserving of more investigation is that the intervention group attracted more teacher concerns about behaviour than the control group. This is likely a reflection of a greater awareness of behaviours by the teachers, resulting from staff training and development in the areas of emotional intelligence and behavioural difficulties around the transition period. An additional area for future study is the effect of the programme on the Year 10 pupils who acted as peer mentors to Year 7 pupils. Anecdotal reports suggest that the experience of mentoring had a positive effect on the EI levels of these students. Mentors were required to keep a reflective diary and to report on their experiences; in these they reported improvements in leadership, confidence, mature attitude, tolerance and communication. Whilst this remains subjective evidence, it suggests that programmes aimed at helping Year 7 pupils with transition may potentially have a positive effect on the EI skills of older pupils who act as peer mentors and this deserves further research attention.


93

In conclusion, the results of the study are promising in that they show a relationship between EI scores and the ability to cope with transition and there is evidence that the lowest EI scorers can develop EI skills through an active intervention strategy. The study is still ongoing and the two year groups involved in this investigation will continue to be monitored as they progress through school. The intervention programme continues to be implemented in all Year 7 classes with a continuing programme of modification and improvement, which will hopefully result in increasing effectiveness in ameliorating the negative impact of transition. Acknowledgements Thanks are extended to all the pupils and staff that helped with this project. References Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict creatively: Evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program in neighbourhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 187–213. Anderson, L., Jacobs, J. E., Schramm, S., & Splittberger, F. (2000). School transitions: Beginning of the end or a new beginning? International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 325–339. Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-on emotional quotient inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, ON: MultiHealth Systems. Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Introduction. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Soloman, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the child development project: Early findings from an ongoing multisite demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 12–35. Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32, 137–151. Berndt, T. J., & Mekos, D. (1995). Adolescents’ perceptions of the stressful and desirable aspects of the transition to junior high school. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 141–158. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional Intelligence and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–1402. Ciarrochi, J. V., Deane, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 197–209. Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: prevalence and prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574. Eccles, J. S., Lord, S. E., Roeser, R. W., Barber, B. L., & Hernandez-Jozefowicz, D. M. (1997). The association of school transitions in early adolescence with developmental trajectories through high school. In S. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrehmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elias, M. J. (2001). Easing transitions with social-emotional learning. Principal Leadership, 1, 20–22. Elias, M. J., Gara, M., & Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of stress and support in children’s transition to middle school: An empirical analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 112–118. Engelberg, E., & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Emotional intelligence, affect intensity, and social adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 533–542.

94 P. Qualter et al. Fenzel, L. M. (2000). Prospective study of changes in global self-worth and strain during transition to middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 93–116. Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 815–824. Galton, M., Morrison, I., & Pell, T. (2000). Transfer and transition in English schools: Reviewing the evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 341–363. Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117–136. Greene, R. W., & Ollendick, T. H. (1993). Evaluation of a multidimensional program for 6th graders in transition from elementary to middle school. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 162–176. Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in supporting the academic achievement of poor African American students during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 223–248. Harter, S., & Connell, J. (1984). A model of children’s achievement and related self-perception of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. G. Nicholls, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in achievement orientation. Greenwich: JAI Press. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of educational transitions on young adolescents perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 777–807. Hightower, A. D., Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Lotyczewski, B. S., Spinell, A. P., Guare, J. C., & Rohrbeck, C. A. (1986). The teacher–child rating scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children’s school problem behaviour and competencies. School Psychology Review, 16, 239–255. Lohman, D. F., Hagen, E. P., & Thorndike, R. L. (2003). Cognitive abilities test: Third edition. London: nferNelson. Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Fijen, P. (2003). The self-perception profile for children: Further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1791–1802. Parker, J. D. A., Creque Sr., R. E., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (2004). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1321–1330. Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimisation during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259–280. Petrides, K. V., Fredrickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behaviour at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277–229. Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2004). Emotional intelligence. The Psychologist, 17, 574–577. Qualter, P., & Whiteley, H. E. (2004). Transition to high school: Supporting schools in developing emotionally literate pupils. Paper presented at the BPS Psychology of Education Conference, Manchester, November. Quayle, D., Dziurawiec, S., Roberts, C., Kane, R., & Ebsworthy, G. (2001). The effect of an optimism and lifeskills program on depressive symptoms in preadolescence. Behaviour Change, 18, 194–203. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1990). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford: Psychology Press.


95

Riley, H., & Schutte, N. S. (2003). Low emotional intelligence as a predictor of substance-use problems. Journal of Drug Education, 33, 391–398. Saflofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: further explorations using the trait meta-mood scale, Psychology and Health, 17, 611–627. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Simunek, M., McKenley, J., & Hollander, S. (2002). Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional well-being. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 769–785. Simmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., Carlton-Ford, S., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). The impact of cumulative change in early adolescence. Child Development, 58, 1220–1234. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, C. A. (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 95–105. Trinidad, D. R., Unger, J. B., Chou, C .P., & Johnson, C. (2004). The protective association of emotional intelligence with psychosocial smoking risk factors for adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 945–954. Wampler, R. S., Munsch. J., & Adams, M. (2002). Ethnic differences in grade trajectories during the transition to junior high. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 213–237. Watt, H. M. G. (2000). Measuring attitudinal change in mathematics and English over the 1st year of junior high school: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 331–361. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., MacIver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescents: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general selfesteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565. Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 215–231.