Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analysis
Please cite this article as: Mattingly, V., Human Resource Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002
Victoria Mattingly, Kurt Kraiger
Keywords: Emotional intelligence, Training Meta-analysis
A B S T R A C T
Human resource practitioners place value on selecting and training a more emotionally in-telligent workforce. Despite this, research has yet to systematically investigate whether emo-tional intelligence can in fact be trained. This study addresses this question by conducting a meta-analysis to assess the effect of training on emotional intelligence, and whether effects are mod-erated by substantive and methodological moderators. We identified a total of 58 published and unpublished studies that included an emotional intelligence training program using either a pre-post or treatment-control design. We calculated Cohen's d to estimate the effect of formal training on emotional intelligence scores. The results showed a moderate positive effect for training, regardless of design. Effect sizes were larger for published studies than dissertations. Effect sizes were relatively robust over gender of participants, and type of EI measure (ability v. mix-edmodel). Further, our effect sizes are in line with other meta-analytic studies of competency-based training programs. Implications for practice and future research on EI training are discussed.
See prior Gei posts here and here.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Understanding the human brain clock & related neuroscience
Showing posts with label social-emotional learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social-emotional learning. Show all posts
Saturday, June 02, 2018
Saturday, March 17, 2018
The importance of differential psychology for school learning: 90% of school achievement variance is due to student characteristics
This is why the study of individual differences/differential psychology is so important. If you don’t want to read the article you can watch a video of Dr. Detterman where he summarizes his thinking and this paper.
Education and Intelligence: Pity the Poor Teacher because Student Characteristics are more Significant than Teachers or Schools. Article link.
Douglas K. Detterman
Case Western Reserve University (USA)
Abstract
Education has not changed from the beginning of recorded history. The problem is that focus has been on schools and teachers and not students. Here is a simple thought experiment with two conditions: 1) 50 teachers are assigned by their teaching quality to randomly composed classes of 20 students, 2) 50 classes of 20 each are composed by selecting the most able students to fill each class in order and teachers are assigned randomly to classes. In condition 1, teaching ability of each teacher and in condition 2, mean ability level of students in each class is correlated with average gain over the course of instruction. Educational gain will be best predicted by student abilities (up to r = 0.95) and much less by teachers' skill (up to r = 0.32). I argue that seemingly immutable education will not change until we fully understand students and particularly human intelligence. Over the last 50 years in developed countries, evidence has accumulated that only about 10% of school achievement can be attributed to schools and teachers while the remaining 90% is due to characteristics associated with students. Teachers account for from 1% to 7% of total variance at every level of education. For students, intelligence accounts for much of the 90% of variance associated with learning gains. This evidence is reviewed
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Education and Intelligence: Pity the Poor Teacher because Student Characteristics are more Significant than Teachers or Schools. Article link.
Douglas K. Detterman
Case Western Reserve University (USA)
Abstract
Education has not changed from the beginning of recorded history. The problem is that focus has been on schools and teachers and not students. Here is a simple thought experiment with two conditions: 1) 50 teachers are assigned by their teaching quality to randomly composed classes of 20 students, 2) 50 classes of 20 each are composed by selecting the most able students to fill each class in order and teachers are assigned randomly to classes. In condition 1, teaching ability of each teacher and in condition 2, mean ability level of students in each class is correlated with average gain over the course of instruction. Educational gain will be best predicted by student abilities (up to r = 0.95) and much less by teachers' skill (up to r = 0.32). I argue that seemingly immutable education will not change until we fully understand students and particularly human intelligence. Over the last 50 years in developed countries, evidence has accumulated that only about 10% of school achievement can be attributed to schools and teachers while the remaining 90% is due to characteristics associated with students. Teachers account for from 1% to 7% of total variance at every level of education. For students, intelligence accounts for much of the 90% of variance associated with learning gains. This evidence is reviewed
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)