Developing the Emotional Intelligence of Undergraduate Music Education Majors: An Exploratory Study Using Bradberry and Greaves’ (2009) Emotional Intelligence 2.0

Abstract

Research focused on the relationship of emotional intelligence (EI) to academic and professional success in education, and whether and how it might be taught and learned, is inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which undergraduate music education majors experienced a change in EI after implementing strategies from Emotional Intelligence 2.0. Participants included 10 junior-year music education majors enrolled in a semester-long music teaching foundations course. Participants predicted their EI scores, completed the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal pretest, and, following instruction, completed the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal posttest. Results indicate a significant difference between predicted and pretest scores, as well as between pretest and posttest scores. While undergraduate music education majors overestimated their EI prior to instruction, EI was improved by using the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 model in combination with classroom instruction.

Keywords

curriculum emotional intelligence music education majors music teacher preparation preservice teachers

Emotional intelligence (EI) is commonly defined as one’s ability to perceive emotion in self and others, understand emotions, integrate emotion in facilitating thought, and regulate emotions for personal growth (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). There is a growing body of research on EI (Corcoran & Tormey, 2010, 2012, 2013; Cougar Hall & West, 2011; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Hen & Walter, 2012; Kocoglu, 2011; Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczek, & Hansenne, 2009; Palomera, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2008; Perry, Ball, & Stacey, 2004; Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015), which likely reflects the belief that EI is related to overall wellness and professional success. Researchers lack consensus and have not produced conclusive evidence, however, in determining how to measure EI, establishing whether and how EI might be taught and learned, and confirming that EI is related to academic and professional success. These issues are prominent in teacher education, a field whether there is global interest in EI, with studies being conducted in Australia (Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015), England (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012), Ireland (Corcoran & Tormey, 2010, 2012, 2013), Israel (Hen & Walter, 2012), Turkey (Kocoglu, 2011), European community member countries (Palomera et al., 2008), and the United States (Cougar Hall & West, 2011).

Literature Review

The accepted definition of EI is one’s ability to perceive emotion in self and others, integrate emotion in facilitating thought, understand emotions, and regulate emotions for personal growth (Corcoran & Tormey, 2010, 2012, 2013; Cougar Hall & West, 2011; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Hen & Walter, 2012; Kocoglu, 2011; Perry et al., 2004). In music education research, EI is often related to personal skills that influence success in teaching (e.g., MacLeod & Walter, 2011; Miksza, Roeder, & Biggs, 2010). These skills include, among others, the ability to develop a positive rapport, manage stress well, and maintain relationships. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2010) and the National Association of Schools of Music (2013) both mention the importance of music educators being able to maintain positive relationships with various groups, including students, parents, colleagues, and the community. This relates closely to the EI skill of perceiving emotion in others. Numerous music teacher educators have developed personal skills checklists for their preservice students that relate to EI skills (e.g., Missouri State University, n.d.; University of Missouri–Kansas City, n.d.). Frequently, these checklists use the term “dispositions,” but often reference emotional skills such as self-control, self-reflection, effective communication, emotional stability, relationship management, and social skills. While emotional skills are not synonymous with dispositions, it appears that institutions are choosing to examine some emotional skills through these checklist tools.

Though music teacher educators commonly evaluate emotional skills using checklists or other less formal procedures, they may not be familiar with numerous tools that have been developed and used to effectively measure the EI of preservice teachers. The most widely used assessment tool for EI appears to be the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Corcoran 2010, 2012, 2013; Cougar Hall & West, 2011; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Nelis et al., 2009). In the MSCEIT User’s Manual, the authors report split-half reliability coefficients of .93 for general consensus scoring of the MSCEIT and .91 for expert scoring. Three-week test–retest reliability is reported at .86 (Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Maul, 2012; Skaar, 2007). According to the manual, the MSCEIT is appropriate for use in corporate, educational, clinical, and research settings, though its authors recommend that the data be used only as one component of the assessment process (Skaar, 2007). The 141 items on the MSCEIT are intended to measure the following four categories of EI: Perception, Appraisal, and Expression of Emotion; Using Emotion to Facilitate Thinking; Understanding and Analyzing Emotional Information; and Regulation of Emotion. This test is somewhat unique in that participants are required to solve problems that involve emotion, rather than answer questions about their perceptions of their own emotions. For example, in one section, participants look at pictures and describe the emotion that is displayed, while in another section, participants judge what a character might do to obtain a certain emotional outcome (Skaar, 2007). While the MSCEIT appears to be the most widely used measure, other instruments have been developed to assess EI.

Nelis et al. (2009) used six different assessment tools in their quasi-experimental study on the relationship between EI coursework and EI scores. Three of these assessments were questionnaires. For the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, participants respond to items using a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors strongly agree and strongly disagree. The Emotion Regulation Profile Questionnaire, is a vignette-based measure targeting adaptive and maladaptive emotional choices. Dimensions of emotion processing are assessed using the Dimensions of Openness to Emotional Experiences–Trait version. Three additional EI tests were used in the Nelis et al. (2009) study: the Emotional Management Abilities Test, which is a scenario-based test through which participants’ ability to manage their own and other’s emotions is assessed; the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, through which the ability to identify, describe, and think about feelings is assessed; and the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding, on which participants are presented with a situation, then choose the emotion that the situation will most likely elicit. While using multiple tests may allow for better subcategory comparisons, it is difficult to make a generalization to EI as a whole when measuring EI through the use of multiple, independently developed instruments. This is because the tests themselves may be of varying psychometric quality and because scores cannot be easily aggregated to arrive at a holistic measure of EI.

Other assessments used to measure EI include the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test–Self-Report version (Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (Hen & Walter, 2012), the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Kocoglu, 2011), and the researcher-developed Reactions to Teaching Situations measure (Perry et al., 2004). The growing number of tools being developed to measure EI may reflect the popularity of EI as a construct of interest in psychology and education, but also the difficulty associated with measuring this construct in a way that is both psychometrically sound and ecologically meaningful. However, when the tool used is found to be valid and reliable in measuring EI, it then becomes possible to consider the relationship of the EI results to other variables.

One such variable frequently studied in teacher education is teacher success in the classroom. Corcoran and Tormey (2013) studied the relationship between students’ scores on the MSCEIT (the most widely used measure) and performance scores in student teaching (measured by university supervisors). Student teachers in their study represented a variety of teaching areas, including music. Results showed no correlation between EI and teaching performance and the researchers concluded that while the MSCEIT may adequately test EI, it does not appear to be predictive of whether student teachers will actually use their EI. Cougar Hall and West (2011) performed a similar study examining MSCEIT scores and student teacher performance as measured by a standards-based rubric. Their study included undergraduate education majors (subject areas were not disclosed) who were currently student teaching at a junior high or high school. They found relationships between teacher performance and GPA and teacher performance and Praxis scores, but, similarly, no significant relationship between teacher performance and EI. In addition, EI scores do not appear to predict academic success (as measured by GPA) of first-year students in teacher training programs (Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015), though behavior engagement and motivation were two factors found to strongly predict success.

Based on the studies described above, EI may not be considered a direct predictor of teaching success. There is some evidence, however, that EI may contribute to successful teaching in indirect ways. According to a study by Dacre Pool and Qualter (2012), EI, as measured by the MCSEIT, was found to have a significant positive relationship with self-efficacy, as measured by a modified version of the Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Kirk et al. in 2008. Similarly, Kocoglu’s (2011) research indicates a significant positive relationship between EI, as measured with the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory, and self-efficacy, as measured by the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale (developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy in 2001). Kocoglu (2011) surmised that EI can positively affect teacher and student success by enhancing teacher self-efficacy. Palomera et al. (2008) take a different approach to the importance of developing the EI of preservice teachers in their review of literature. They propose that the education of well-rounded children requires that teachers know how to teach their students to become emotionally competent, and that teachers should themselves become competent in EI through teacher training programs. Beyond research evidence, they cite educational legislation and societal expectations as a rationale for improving teacher EI. If EI does in fact contribute in some form to teacher success, it becomes important to consider whether and how EI might be taught and learned in a teacher education program.

Some researchers have examined the effect of EI specific courses on college students’ EI test scores over time (Corcoran & Tormey, 2010; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Hen & Walter, 2012; Nelis et al., 2009), but with mixed results. In an unconventional approach to teacher education, Hen and Walter (2012) incorporated the Sherborne Developmental Movement teaching model in a teacher education course to investigate whether this form of therapeutic-, interactive-, and movement-based learning would affect development of EI in future educators. They reported higher measures of EI at the end of the course in the subareas of expression and use of emotion, though no increase was found in regulation of emotion or empathy. Similarly, Nelis et al. (2009) examined whether EI could be improved through a 6-week course on the topic, and whether improvement would last over time. They found significant changes in the experimental (training) group over the control group, and these improvements remained consistent after 6 months. The researchers concluded that students can increase their EI through training in college, and this training can have a long-term effect. Dacre Pool and Qualter (2012) repeated the Nelis et al. (2009) study with improvements in the design and sample. They also found significant EI increase in the intervention group, and additionally, they found significant increase in emotional self-efficacy. However, in a similar study of third-year undergraduate teacher education students, Corcoran and Tormey (2010) found contrasting results to the previously described studies, with their experimental group showing no overall improvement after a series of EI workshops. Some improvement, though not statistically significant, was found in subareas of EI. The authors concluded that though their participants showed low initial levels of EI and no significant overall improvement through intervention, there is not yet sufficient evidence in the field for conclusive claims to be made.

The results of the above studies are mixed, yet all authors suggested the need for more empirical studies, especially ones that use a true experimental design. Studies with larger sample sizes, including participants from varying disciplines, could provide a more complete understanding of the extent to which EI interventions are successful. In addition, greater use of cross-sectional and longitudinal designs could help determine whether EI may be systematically developed over time.

A limitation of many EI intervention studies conducted within undergraduate education contexts is that authors do not describe the implementation or teaching method in adequate detail, making replication difficult if not impossible. One specific strategy that could be successful and replicated in teacher education settings is the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method, developed by Bradberry and Greaves (2009). This method has been used in corporate settings, a cross section of industries (e.g., telecommunications, construction, and manufacturing), and a wide variety of job classes and levels, but has not specifically been applied to educational settings. The Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method consists of a hardcopy book, access to two online Emotional Intelligence Appraisal (EIA) tests for purposes of a pretest and posttest, and online supplementary reading materials and activities. Following completion of the pretest EIA, the participant is directed to specific skill-development strategies (available in the book and online) to target improvement in the four EI areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. The participant is also guided through an Action Plan in which they choose one EI skill to work on, select three strategies from those recommended in the method, and select a mentor to contact for advice. The Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method is easily accessible, user friendly, cost-effective, has a positive approach, and focuses on reflection and improvement. Although this method has not been studied in collegiate teacher education settings, these attributes suggest it may be a worthwhile resource.

More research is needed to validate various tools used to measure EI, and to determine whether teaching interventions can positively affect EI scores. More EI research should target specific teaching disciplines, such as music, that are rich in emotional content and that rely on interpersonal pedagogies. In most previous studies, researchers have drawn samples of undergraduate education majors from varied disciplines (Corcoran, 2010, 2012, 2013; Cougar Hall & West, 2011; Dacre Pool & Qualter, 2012; Perry et al., 2004; Wurf & Croft-Piggin, 2015), and rarely have focused on specific preservice teacher populations (Kocoglu, 2011; Nelis et al., 2009). There are no known studies of EI specific to music teacher preparation programs, nor any instances in which the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 assessment and training method has been examined. The purpose of the current study was to examine the development of EI in undergraduate music education majors using the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method. The following question guided the research: To what degree do undergraduate music education majors experience a change in EI after implementing strategies from Emotional Intelligence 2.0?

Method

Sample and Context

A convenience sample (N = 10; 4 men and 6 women) of undergraduate music education majors from a large Midwestern university participated in a semester-long course, Philosophical and Pragmatic Foundations of Music Education, as part of their junior-year music education curriculum. Participants represented emphasis areas in instrumental (n = 5) and choral (n = 5) music education. A portion of this course was dedicated to helping students develop a better understanding of themselves and their personal and teaching philosophies. Course materials and activities contributed to students’ growth in these areas, particularly the following assignments: Pecha Kucha, Personal Credo, Self-Shaping Project, and Emotional Intelligence 2.0 unit. The belief that one’s behavior is malleable was emphasized through the EI unit and the Self-Shaping project. The Emotional Intelligence 2.0 unit was a new aspect of this course, intended to help students in an area we professors saw as a weakness.

Measures

Emotional Intelligence 2.0 Measures

Scores for the pretest and posttest resulted from the online version of the EIA (see Appendix A in the online version of the article). The EIA consists of four subcategories: (a) self-awareness, the ability to accurately perceive one’s own emotions and understand tendencies across situations; (b) self-management, the ability to manage one’s personal emotional reactions to situations and people; (c) social awareness, the ability to understand emotions in other people; and (d) relationship management, the ability to successfully manage interactions with other people. The appraisal consists of 28 prompts to which participants respond with how often they perform behaviors a certain way. Anchors on the 6-point frequency scale range from never to always. Scores are norm converted on a 1- to 100-point scale (TalentSmart, 2011).

The technical manual for the EIA (TalentSmart, 2011) includes thorough details concerning the test’s psychometric quality. Reliabilities of the four subscales of the EIA ranged from .87 to .99. Construct validity was determined through factor analysis, and the recommended two independent factor analysis accounted for 33% of variance. The EIA had high levels of predictive validity in several studies, with scores on the EIA accounting for nearly 20% of variance in job performance as determined by employers’ performance evaluations (r = .42, p < .001). When comparing the EIA and the MSCEIT, the EIA explained 13.2% of variance in job performance, while the MSCEIT explained only 6%. The difference between the regression weights for the EIA and MSCEIT scores (z = 6.1) is large and statistically significant.

The Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method was chosen for this study in place of other potential methods in part because of its psychometric properties, but also based on my belief that it was well suited for this upper-level music education course and would address the needs of the students in the class. I also felt the method was easily accessible, user friendly, cost-effective, had a positive approach, and aligned with my teaching philosophy by focusing on reflection and improvement.

Researcher Modified Measures

The Self-Reflection Survey was a researcher-modified, summative version of the EIA scale (see Appendix B in the online version of the article). The Self-Reflection Survey used the same scoring range and categories as the EIA, but I asked participants to predict and justify their EI score in each category, rather than answer prompts (compare Appendix A with Appendix B in the online version of the article). Prior to completing the Self-Reflection Survey, participants read a large portion of the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 text and also engaged in class discussion and activities (see Appendix D in the online version of the article). This background context helped participants be informed about the EIA before predicting their scores in each category.

Following the completion of the EI unit and posttest, participants completed a researcher-created questionnaire (see Appendix C in the online version of the article) through which they identified the category or categories of EI they chose to work on in their Action Plan, what strategy or strategies they used, and to self-assess their effort toward improvement in their chosen category using a 5-point scale on a self-report measure of degree of effort, with anchors ranging from none to substantial amount. This information allowed for calculation of a pretest-to-posttest difference score in participants’ selected “improvement category” and provided a value for self-assessed effort toward this goal.

Procedure

Following institutional review board approval, participants completed a brief survey to indicate their willingness to participate in this study and provided demographic information, including gender and music education area of emphasis. Between the first and second class meetings, participants were instructed to read pages 1 to 50 of the textbook, Emotional Intelligence 2.0 (Bradberry & Greaves, 2009). During the second class meeting, participants engaged in researcher-designed writing activities and discussion about EI in general, and their perception of its function in music education. The specific prompts, based on concepts from the text, can be found in Appendix D in the online version of the article. Participants also completed the Self-Reflection Survey (see Appendix B in the online version of the article) in which they predicted their EI score in four areas (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management) using a researcher-modified survey based on the EIA, and provided a short rationale or an example to support their self-assessment. The additional statement provided by the participants was similar to the prompts asked in the online EIA.

Between the second and third class meetings, participants took the online EIA (see Appendix A in the online version of the article) and submitted their scores to the two instructors. Their assignment was to explore the recommended strategies and read textbook sections that addressed the EI area in which they hoped to achieve the most growth.

During the third class meeting, participants completed a researcher-designed reflection worksheet (see Appendix E in the online version of the article) on which I asked them to consider differences between their predicted scores and their pretest scores, and explore how they might relate their EI score to teaching. Participants also completed the Action Plan provided in the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method; they chose one EI skill to work on, selected three skill development strategies from those recommended in the method, and selected a mentor to contact for advice. Following completion of the Action Plan during this third class period, we instructed participants to begin implementing strategies for growth according to their plan.

Throughout the semester, my coinstructor and I guided participants in exploring EI as it connected to other topics in the course. We also reminded participants to continue implementing strategies in their Action Plan. Participants completed a researcher-designed midsemester “EI Check-up Worksheet” (see Appendix F in the online version of the article) on which I asked them to report which strategies, if any, they had implemented so far, and whether they had perceived any differences in the way they understood themselves or interactions with others. Toward the end of the semester, approximately 3 months after the EIA pretest was completed, participants took the online EIA a second time and completed the researcher-designed follow-up questionnaire.

Results

Descriptive statistics for composite scores, by gender and emphasis area, are reported in Table 1. The mean composite scores for males (M predicted = 79.25, M pretest = 76.00, M posttest = 80.06) were higher than the mean composite scores for females (M predicted = 77.58, M pretest = 71.58, M posttest = 79.29) on all three tests. Participants with choral emphasis had higher mean composite scores (M predicted = 81.80, M pretest = 74.85, M posttest = 79.15) on all three tests compared with participants with instrumental emphasis (M predicted = 77.40, M pretest = 71.85, M posttest = 77.35). Ninety percent of participants (n = 9) predicted higher composite EI scores than they received on their pretest. Ninety percent of participants (n = 9) increased their composite score on the posttest compared with the pretest.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Composite Scores.

Test type	Sample		Gender M		Emphasis area M
Test type	M	SD	Male	Female	Choral	Instrumental
Predicted composite	78.25	6.46	79.25	77.58	81.80	77.40
Pretest composite	73.60	9.02	76.00	71.58	74.85	71.85
Posttest composite	79.60	7.23	80.06	79.29	79.15	77.35

A Friedman test, a nonparametric alternative to the one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures, was conducted using participants’ predicted scores (assessed through the Self-Reflection Survey), EIA pretest scores, and EIA posttest scores. A significant difference was found, χ²(2) = 9.800, p < .01. Follow-up pairwise comparisons, using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, indicated a significant difference between predicted scores and scores on the pretest (Z = −2.30, p < .05) with a moderate effect size (d = .63), as well as between the pretest and posttest (Z = 2.40, p < .05) with a moderate effect size (d = .77). Participants predicted higher EI scores than they received on the EIA pretest, and scores increased from the pretest to posttest.

One aspect of the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method is the Action Plan. As part of this activity, participants chose one EI skill to work on, selected three skill development strategies from those recommended in the method, and selected a mentor to contact for advice. To examine whether improvement occurred in the skill area that participants chose in their Action Plan, I ran a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on participants’ self-selected “improvement category.” Results showed a significant difference in scores between pretest and posttest (Z = 2.81, p < .01), though a Spearman rho correlation indicated that this score increase did not appear to correlate with self-reported effort scores, r(9) = .28, p > .05. Overall, results suggest undergraduate music education students’ EI can be improved through the study and implementation of Bradberry and Greaves’s (2009) Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method when incorporated into a music education course.

Discussion

In this study, I sought to determine the degree to which undergraduate music education majors experienced a change in EI after implementing strategies from the Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method within a junior-year foundations course. Participants demonstrated significant gains in EI from the beginning to end of the semester. Moreover, EIA scores increased in the participants’ targeted improvement areas, but this improvement was not associated with self-reported effort. This result may indicate that deliberate training in EI through undergraduate music education coursework can contribute to an increase in students’ EI, which supports similar findings by Nelis et al. (2009) and Dacre Pool and Qualter (2012) who also found significant changes in students’ EI through emphasis on this topic in a college course. Implementing an EI unit within a music education course may help prepare future teachers to successfully address elements of teaching that are unique from content area or pedagogical expertise. Examples might include controlling one’s emotion in a difficult situation (self-management), being able to accurately “read” a room (social awareness), or working together effectively with other faculty members (relationship management).

Interestingly, participants’ score increases in their target areas were not correlated to their self-assessed effort scores. This result supports Bradberry and Greaves’ (2009) claim that simply being aware of EI can improve EI, even without deliberate effort or training. Therefore, it may be important for professors to at least introduce this concept to their music education students, perhaps through such a method as Emotional Intelligence 2.0.

A significant difference was found between participants’ predicted scores on the Self-Reflection Survey and scores on the online EIA pretest. All but one student predicted higher scores on the Self-Reflection Survey than they received on the pretest. This result could suggest that students overestimate their level of EI prior to EI instruction. I believe this information can be useful to college music education professors in understanding their students and in planning instruction. It may be beneficial for professors to measure students’ perception of their EI early in the semester, followed by an EIA test. This information could guide professors in planning curriculum that addresses students’ understanding of their own emotions and helps students improve in areas of emotional weakness. Example learning activities recommended by Bradberry and Greaves (2009) in their Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method include practicing one’s response in hypothetical highly emotional situations, analyzing the emotions and actions of characters in video clip scenarios, and creating an Action Plan to work on a specific emotional skill area.

Additional potentially important findings, though not statistically significant, were revealed when considering the test scores in relation to demographic information. The finding that male participants scored higher than female participants is worthy of further study, as it could challenge the stereotype that women are more aware of emotion than men. Similarly, the finding that choral education participants scored higher than instrumental education participants is worth investigating, given how choral educators commonly emphasize the social and communal facets of choir participation.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The number of participants in this exploratory study was limited, therefore, results could not be generalized to a larger population. Additional studies with larger samples of undergraduate music education students from diverse institutions might provide further evidence that the effect of Bradberry and Greaves’ (2009) Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method is salient for improving EI in a range of contexts and with preservice music teachers at various stages of development. Because this method has been validated in corporate rather than educational settings, a logical next step is to determine whether EI scores predict various measures of teaching effectiveness (e.g., real-time observations, video-based evaluations) common to music teacher education programs. In addition, the relationship of EIA scores to proprietary or institution-level teacher disposition measures should be further investigated.

Conclusions

Results of this study suggest undergraduate music education students’ EI can be improved through the study and implementation of Bradberry and Greaves’ (2009) Emotional Intelligence 2.0 method as part of a semester-long foundations course in the music education degree program. Embedding EI as a strand or specific course unit within the music teacher education curriculum may increase student awareness of personal weaknesses in EI, and provide students with opportunities to enhance EI as part of a deliberate strategy to promote future teaching success.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The Appendices are available in the online supplemental material.

References

Bradberry

Greaves

(2009). Emotional Intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA: TalentSmart.

Corcoran

Tormey

(2010). Teacher education, emotional competencies and development education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2448–2457.

Corcoran

R. P.

Tormey

(2012). How emotionally intelligent are pre-service teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 750–759.

Corcoran

R. P.

Tormey

(2013). Does emotional intelligence predict student teacher’s performance? Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 34–42.

Cougar Hall

West

J. H

. (2011). Potential predictors of student teaching performance: Considering emotional intelligence. Issues in Educational Research, 21, 145–161.

Dacre Pool

Qualter

. (2012). Improving emotional intelligence and emotional self-efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 306–312.

Hen

Walter

(2012). The Sherborne Developmental Movement (SDM) teaching model for pre-service teachers. British Journal of Learning Support, 27(1), 11–19.

Kocoglu

(2011). Emotional intelligence and teacher efficacy: A study of Turkish EFL pre-service teachers. Teacher Development, 15, 471–484.

MacLeod

R. B.

Walter

J. S.

(2011). A descriptive study of cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding student teacher preparation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 190, 21–34.

10.

Maul

(2012). The validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence. Emotion Review, 4, 394–402.

11.

Miksza

Roeder

Biggs

(2010). Surveying Colorado band directors’ opinions of skills and characteristics important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 364–381.

12.

Missouri State University. (n.d). Candidate professional disposition traits checklist. Retrieved from https://education.missouristate.edu/assets/ess/Professional_Dispositions_Checklist.pdf

13.

National Association of Schools of Music. (2013). Handbook 2013-2014. Reston, VA: Author.

14.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). NCATE Glossary. Retrieved from www.ncate.org/Standards/UnitStandards/Glossary/tabid/477/Default.aspx#P

15.

Nelis

Quoidbach

Mikolajczek

Hansenne

(2009). Increasing emotional intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 36–41.

16.

Palomera

Fernandez-Berrocal

Brackett

M. A.

(2008). Emotional intelligence as a basic competency in pre-service teacher training: Some evidence. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6, 437–454.

17.

Perry

Ball

Stacey

(2004). Emotional intelligence and teaching situations: Developing a new measure. Issues in Educational Research, 14, 29–43.

18.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.

19.

Skaar

N. R.

(2007). Test review: Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

(2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 47–50.

20.

TalentSmart. (2011). Technical manual: Emotional Intelligence Appraisal. San Diego, CA: Author.

21.

University of Missouri–Kansas City. (n.d.). Professional readiness form. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Music Education, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, USA.

22.

Wurf

Croft-Piggin

(2015). Predicting the academic achievement of first-year pre-service teachers: The role of engagement, motivation, ATAR, and emotional intelligence. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 75–91.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB