WRITE 8-9 pages on Topic- EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS ON THE WORKFORCE

Online_education_emotional_in_SAMPLE.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >WRITE 8-9 pages on Topic- EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS ON THE WORKFORCE

ONLINE EDUCATION, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE,

AND INTERPERSONAL SKILLS FOR THE

21ST CENTURY WORKFORCE

NATASHA STOCKTON LINDSEY

MARGARET L. RICE, DISSERTATION CHAIR

ANGELA D. BENSON

VIVIAN H. WRIGHT

BOB L. JOHNSON, JR.

J. DOUG BARRETT

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the

Department of Educational Leadership,

Policy, and Technology Studies

in the Graduate School of

The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2014

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 3620127 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 3620127

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this descriptive, cross-sectional, quantitative study was to compare the

interpersonal abilities of online students to traditional students by evaluating their Emotional

Intelligence (EI) through the Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM). The study also

sought to determine if there is a relationship between various demographic data and number of

online courses completed and EI abilities of online students.

The data collection occurred by utilizing a situational judgment test known as the

Situational Test for Emotional Management (STEM) with additional questions add for the

collection of demographic data. The sample for this study included 865 students comprised of

765 undergraduate business majors and 91 undergraduate business minors.

While the study found no significant difference existed in the EI scores of students in the

online and traditional environment, one of the most interesting findings to emerge from the data

was the significant difference of EI scores surrounding the number of online courses completed.

Students who completed at least one online course scored significantly higher on the STEM

survey than their counterparts who had not completed any online courses. This finding implies

that students might benefit from the time, training, experience, and practice of interpersonal

skills in an online environment. Furthermore, the results demonstrated a significant difference in

the emotional intelligence of students on the basis of gender. Females notably outscored males

on the STEM survey.

iii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my children, Ryan and Kyler. There are times in my life

when I think I cannot possibly love your more, and then I do. You will always be my greatest

accomplishment. As your mother, it is my job to teach you about life; however, it is you who

have taught me what life is all about. Remember to dream big, love deeply, laugh often, be slow

to anger, quick to forgive, and always have faith. Finally, be determined in every way, even

when you don’t feel like it.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and lean not on your own understanding. In all

your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your path straight.” Proverbs 3:5-6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

“A good dissertation is a done dissertation.” -Ancient Grad Student Proverb

Now that I officially have a “good and done” dissertation, I must offer my utmost

gratitude to those individuals who offered wisdom, support, guidance and encouragement in

reaching my goal. The following individuals have offered unwavering support throughout this

process for which I will be eternally grateful.

To my dissertation chair, Dr. Rice, thank you for the hours you spent answering

questions, reading drafts, and providing feedback. Your kind heart and encouraging spirit has

always been a bright spot for this weary grad student, wife, mom of two, daughter, and teacher.

To my other committee members, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Benson, Dr. Johnson and Dr. Wright, I am so

grateful for the time, interests, and wisdom that you have all so graciously offered throughout

this endeavor.

To my friends and colleagues, thank you for constantly encouraging me and believing in

my ability to pursue this degree. For those who forged on before me, thanks for lending your ear

and offering insights along the way. To Dr. Carolyn Lovett thanks for that awe-inspiring

moment of clarity that restarted my momentum.

To my wonderful family, you are my “glue,” the ones who held me together to the end.

Mom & Dad, thanks for everything. Your faith in my abilities, and your ever-present willingness

to step-in and help out with the boys made this goal possible. To my boys, you bring joy and

happiness to my life. Thanks for understanding when school came before fun. I hope I have set

an example for which you may follow. To my husband, Matt, words cannot express the love and

gratitude I have for you. While I consider myself to be a strong person, I need someone to take

my hand and say everything will be alright. I am so blessed to have you. Now, let us find a new

journey, a new adventure, and a new experience together.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................x

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................5

Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................5

Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6

Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................7

Assumptions of the Study ..................................................................................................10

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................10

Operational Definition of Terms ........................................................................................11

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................13

Introduction ........................................................................................................................13

Marketplace Needs.............................................................................................................14

Interpersonal Skills ............................................................................................................15

Emotional Intelligence .......................................................................................................16

vii

Trait vs. Ability Emotional Intelligence ................................................................17

Models of Emotional Intelligence ..........................................................................17

Salovey, Mayer, and Caruso’s Model of Emotional Intelligence ..............18

Bar-on’s Model of Emotional Intelligence ................................................23

Goldman’s Model of Emotional Intelligence and Social Competence

Intelligence .................................................................................................25

Emotional Intelligence and Age.............................................................................26

Emotional Intelligence and Gender .......................................................................27

Emotional Intelligence and Teamwork ..................................................................28

Situational Judgment Test ..................................................................................................29

Online Learning .................................................................................................................32

Merging Marketplace Needs, Interpersonal Skills, and Online Learning .........................36

Summary ............................................................................................................................37

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................39

Introduction ........................................................................................................................39

Research Design.................................................................................................................39

Participant Population ........................................................................................................39

Sampling ............................................................................................................................40

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................42

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................43

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................44

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..............................................................................46

Introduction ........................................................................................................................46

Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................................47

viii

Quantitative Results ...........................................................................................................50

Reliability and Validity ..........................................................................................50

Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................51

Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................52

Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................54

Research Question 4 ..............................................................................................55

Research Question 5 ..............................................................................................57

Research Question 6 ..............................................................................................58

Research Question 7 ..............................................................................................60

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................63

Introduction ........................................................................................................................63

Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................63

Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................63

Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................64

Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................65

Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................67

Research Question 4 ..............................................................................................68

Research Question 5 ..............................................................................................69

Research Question 6 ..............................................................................................70

Research Question 7 ..............................................................................................72

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................73

Implications of the Study ...................................................................................................74

Recommendations for Further Study .................................................................................79

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................82

APPENDICIES ..............................................................................................................................91

LIST OF TABLES

1. Survey Respondents by Classification .....................................................................................48

2. Number of Courses Completed Online ....................................................................................49

3. Respondents by Department ....................................................................................................49

4. Respondents by Major .............................................................................................................51

5. Group Statistics for EI Scores by Type of Student ..................................................................52

6. t-test for Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Type of Student ......................................54

7. Group Statistics for the Number of Online Classes Completed ..............................................53

8. ANOVA Table by Number of Online Classes Completed ........................................................54

9. Group Statistics by Age of Student ..........................................................................................54

10. t-test for Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Student Age ...........................................55

11. Group Statistics by Student Gender .........................................................................................56

12. t-test For Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Student Gender ......................................56

13. Group Statistics by Student Classification ...............................................................................57

14. ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students by Classification ...............................................58

15. Group Statistics based on Teamwork ......................................................................................59

16. ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students based on Teamwork ..........................................60

17. Group Statistics by Department ...............................................................................................61

18. ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students by Department ...................................................62

LIST OF FIGURES

1. The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence ............................................................................8

2. The Hierarchical Model of Emotional Intelligence .................................................................19

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

As the trend of online education expands, professors have questioned whether an online

education provides students with the proper development of interpersonal relationships and

social skills (Allen & Seaman, 2011). At a time when education is vital to economic success,

there is growing evidence of a skills gap which suggests that young adults lack interpersonal

skills needed for success in today’s marketplace (Glenn, 2003; Harvard, 2011; James & James,

2004; Perreault, 2004; Sharma, 2009; Wilhelm, 2004). With such a tremendous use of online

resources for communicating in not only social settings, but also in the educational realm, one

might question whether interpersonal skills gaps are more likely to occur with online college

students rather than those participating in the traditional college experience. Students completing

courses online are not studying in a traditional classroom and might miss face-to-face (FtF) time

with other students. This experience might deprive students of networking opportunities as well

as basic social interactions.

Research has shown that employers want new hires to possess strong interpersonal skills

(Glenn, 2003; Harvard, 2011; James & James, 2004; Mitchell, Skinner & White, 2010; Perreault,

2004; Sharma, 2009; Wilhelm, 2004). “Interpersonal skills are tied to social conscientiousness

and interpersonal relationships and measure the extent to which users know how to recognize the

emotions and feelings of others, and their ability to establish and maintain cooperative and

satisfying relationships” (Casale, Tella & Fioravanti, 2013, p. 525). Emotion is defined as, “a

conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually

directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral

changes in the body” (Merriam-Webster, 2012, ¶1). It has previously been identified as a critical

component of social interaction within the field of communication (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998;

Burleson & Planalp, 2000; Planalp & Fitness, 1999). Within the academic settings, emotions

help shape student engagement and learning (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011). By

understanding and managing emotions, individuals are able to regulate personal intellectual

growth and social relational growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a salient theme in a diverse array of circles including the

scientific, education, and business realms that addresses elements of interpersonal skills. The

term is defined by Mayer and Salovey (1990) as “the subset of social intelligence that involves

the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them

and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (p. 185). Later, the definition

was revised as follows:

Emotional intelligence involves the ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express

emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the

ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge, and the ability to regulate

emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10)

Daniel Goldman furthered momentum related to this concept upon publishing a best

seller, Emotional Intelligence, in which he argued that EI was sometimes more significant than

Intelligence Quotients (IQ) and strongly linked to job performance (Goleman, 1995). Media

outlets such as Time and USA Today Weekend Magazine bestowed EI stories with publications

and pronounced it to be a strong predictor of school, work performance and life success. EI is

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge related to one’s emotions and the emotions of others

utilizing interpersonal skills and social interactions (Sen, 2008).

Statement of the Problem

Academic leaders at institutions with online offerings currently hold a more favorable

opinion of the learning outcomes of online education than academic leaders at institutions that do

not currently provide online educational opportunities (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Furthermore,

over two-thirds of post-secondary professors rate the online educational environment to be either

the same or superior to the traditional face-to-face setting. While many of the academic leaders

perceive online education to be at least as good as face-to-face instruction, one dimension falls

short of this attitude. Interpersonal skills are perceived to be inferior in the online atmosphere

when compared with the FtF environment (Allen & Seaman, 2011). With the understanding that

colleges must better prepare tomorrow’s workforce, it is essential to explore whether or not

online education diminishes students’ interpersonal skills. However, there is no measure to

assess these skills within the online environment (Loader, 2007).

Interpersonal skills research rarely occurs despite its significance to the individual’s life

as it is difficult to distinguish interpersonal skills from other cognitive, psychomotor, or affective

components like personalities (Doo, 2006). Additionally, some individuals are likely to presume

that interpersonal skills will not increase through educational opportunities. Personality and

interpersonal or social skills are related, yet, personality is not easily changed while interpersonal

skills can be developed and improved upon through training (Ferris, Whitt, & Hochwarter, 2001;

Geher, 2004). Interpersonal skills are one of the factors present in the analyses of the social

aspect of learning, and are closely related to communication skills. They are integral to

interpersonal interaction and precede the emergence of social presence. In 1999, Gardner

explained that “interpersonal intelligence denotes a person’s capacity to understand the

intentions, motivations, and desires of other people and, consequently, to work effectively with

others” (p. 43). Improving interpersonal skills/intelligence helps enrich individuals relationships,

cope better at work and in social situations, and especially when dealing with difficult or

challenging individuals. Some faculty question whether an online education provides students

with the proper development of interpersonal relationships and social skills (Allen & Seaman,

2011). Individuals who have a self-perception of social incompetence demonstrate a preference

for online social interaction (POSI) (Casale, Tella & Fioravanti, 2012). POSI is defined as, “a

cognitive individual difference construct characterized by beliefs that one is safer, more

efficacious, more confident, and more comfortable within online interpersonal interactions and

relationships then with traditional FtF social activities” (Caplan, 2003, p. 629). One research

study’s results illustrated, “Self-reported emotional intelligence (both Intrapersonal and

Interpersonal component) is negatively associated with the preference for online social

interaction” (Casale, Tella, & Fioravanti, 2013). Turkle (2011) described today’s connective

technologies as a means to promote always being elsewhere emotionally and socially. Online

interpersonal interactions offer the perception of decreased social threats and increase the

tendency to escape from FtF interactions (Amichai-Hamburger & Furnham, 2007).

Graduates must display foresight in navigating a rapidly shifting economic landscape.

They will need to reassess the skills they need and quickly put together the right resources to

develop and update skill sets (Glenn, 2003; Harvard, 2011; James & James, 2004; League for

Innovation in the Community College, 1995; Mitchell, Skinner & White, 2010; Perreault, 2004;

Sharma, 2009; Wilhelm, 2004). The career-minded graduate is one who can adapt, manage

stress, incorporate teamwork, and help others. Yet, a 2010 University of Michigan study

collecting data from fourteen thousand college students over the past thirty years, from 1979

through 2009, has shown that over the past nine years, young people have demonstrated a

dramatic decline in interest in other people (University of Michigan, 2010). Additionally, the

report suggested that college students do not understand the value of viewing a situation from

another person’s perspective.

Individuals with good interpersonal skills are more likely to improve their ability to

determine appropriate self-behavior, cope with undesirable behavior, absorb stress, deal with

ambiguity, structure social interaction, share responsibility, and interact more easily with others

(Bar-On, 2005). An individual’s ability to be a team player, to collaborate with individuals from

different cultures and backgrounds, to interact with diverse personalities, and to work on projects

with strict deadlines is required in the marketplace. EI has been found to gauge the skills

necessary to safeguard interpersonal relationships as they are related to social adaptation within

the environment (Bar-On, 2005). Furthermore, EI predicts positive relations with others and is

negatively associated with interpersonal problems (Ghiabi & Ali Besharat, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the interpersonal abilities of online students to

traditional students by evaluating their EI through the Situational Test of Emotional Management

(STEM). The study sought to determine if there is a relationship between the number of online

courses completed and EI abilities of students. Additionally, the study examined demographic

data such as age, gender and classification for any relationships associated with EI abilities of

students. Finally, the study evaluated whether a relationship exists between teamwork

components of courses and students’ EI abilities.

Significance of the Study

Interpersonal skills research rarely occurs; as such, this study was unique in that it

examined whether or not there is a relationship between online education and interpersonal skills

of students. Pedagogical practices associated with interpersonal skills and online education could

be improved upon to help individuals cultivate relationships, and cope better at work and in

social situations based on the results of this study. Additionally, this research endeavor has the

potential to add to scholarly literature as it is the first in a new line of studies.

Research Questions

There are several research questions addressed within this study:

1) Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of online students

and traditional students;

2) Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students based on

the number of online courses completed;

3) Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students on the

basis of age;

4) Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students on the

basis of gender’

5) Is there a significant difference between EI abilities of students based on student

classifications;

6) Is there a significant difference in the EI abilities of students who participate in

course teamwork activities and those who do not; and

7) Is there a significant difference in the EI abilities of students among the four

departments within the college of business?

Theoretical Framework

The concept of EI began with the works of Thorndike (1920) in the form of “social

intelligence” and the ability to get along with others. Wechsler (1935) furthered suggested that

affective components of intelligence were likely to life success. Maslow (1959) described the

ability of people to build emotional strength. In 1975, Gardner introduced the concept of

multiple intelligences and Wayne Payne introduced the actual term EI in his doctoral dissertation

in 1985. One of the most significant moments in EI occurred in 1990 with the work of Mayer

and Salovey. However, it was the work of Daniel Goldman in 1995 that popularized the overall

concept of EI.

While there are a variety of constructs associated with models of EI, this research will

follow the theoretical framework of the Ability Model of EI as developed by Mayer, Salovey and

Caruso that demonstrates an individual’s ability to reason with and about emotions (2004). EI is

defined by Salovey and Mayer (1997) as,

The ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotion; the ability to access

and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion

and emotional knowledge, and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and

intellectual growth. (p. 10)

They identified EI as a form of pure intelligence or cognitive ability. Their theory combines

elements from the fields of intelligence and emotion. Emotions serve as signals that express

reliable and palpable meanings about relationships as many emotions are universal. Intelligence

incorporates the ability to carry out abstract reasoning (Mayer & Salovey, 1990; Mayer, Salovey

& Caruso, 2002).

The Ability Model of EI as developed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso demonstrates an

individual’s ability to reason with and about emotions (2004). The Ability Model is broken

down into two areas of Experiential and Strategic Emotional Intelligence. Experiential EI

provides information on the ability to perceive emotional information, relate it to other

sensations and then use EI to facilitate thought. Strategic EI relates to the ability to understand

emotional information and use it strategically for planning and self-management. These two

areas are comprised of the four branches which incorporate the ability to a) perceive emotion; b)

use emotion to facilitate thought; c) understand emotions; and d) manage emotion (Mayer,

Salovey & Caruso, 2004) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence (Rossen, Kranzler, Algina, 2008).

The branches are listed in succession from perception to management and represent the

degree to which the ability is intermingled within one’s personality (Mayer, 1998, 2001). The

four branches of their model are

…arranged from more basic psychological processes to higher, more psychologically

integrated processes. For example, the lowest branch concerns the (relatively) simple

abilities of perceiving and expressing emotion; in contrast, the highest level branch

concerns the conscious, reflective regulation of emotion. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 36)

The areas associated with perceiving emotion and using emotion to facilitate thought are

discrete areas of information processing that are bound within the emotional system. The first

step in understanding emotions is to accurately perceive them. In many situations this

incorporates the use of body language, facial expressions, and intonation that are absent within

the online environment. These components are clues and insights into the emotional outlook of

others. Pentland (2008) has suggested that our communication technologies treat people like,

“cogs in an information-processing machine” rather than as humans (p. 96). Perceiving

emotions relies on the ability to correctly identify the feelings of others. One must be aware of

their emotions to accurately evaluate their surroundings, which is also a key component of

working well with others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). Using

emotions to facilitate thought focuses on the concept that individual emotions affect thought. As

such, individuals should link emotions and thinking for creative ideas, planning and interpersonal

relationships (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004). Reasoning with

emotions through the facilitation of thought helps individuals prioritize and react effectively to

others.

Area three, understanding emotions, reflects the capacity to analyze emotions, appreciate

their probable trends over time, and understand their outcomes. Emotional understanding is

insight to the self and others and requires emotional knowledge. It is this knowledge that assists

folks in understanding others better (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004).

The emotions we perceive can carry a wide variety of meanings, if someone is expressing

frustration, the observer must interpret the cause of their irritation and what it might mean.

Insights in the self and others require emotional knowledge that helps one understand people

better.

Finally, managing emotions is the ability to manage emotions in context of individual

goals, self-knowledge, and social awareness. Regulating emotions, responding appropriately, and

responding to the emotions of others are all key ingredients of emotional management. To be

emotionally intelligent, individuals must be aware of their emotions and then use them to solve

problems for more positive outcomes (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso,

2004).

Managing emotions is area four. The ability to manage emotions is a key component of

EI. Regulating emotions, replying appropriately and responding to the emotions of others are all

important aspects of emotional management and effective interpersonal skills. While this model

incorporates two areas and four branches, this study will focus on the area of Strategic EI and

focus specifically on the fourth branch of managing emotions.

Assumptions of the Study

Assumptions associated within this study are discussed within this portion of the paper.

The researcher assumed that participants answered the situational judgment test with sincerity. It

was also assumed that participants answered the situational judgment test with honesty.

Limitations of the Study

There were several limitations for consideration in association with this study. The initial

research occurred within one college at one regional university within the southeastern United

States. Additionally, data were collected from students only. Therefore generalizations about the

results of this study are only be referenced at the student level of this university. Since the

research was conducted within only one college of the university the sample size associated with

the study was also a limitation. Furthermore, the sample logic relied upon self-selection to

participate by the student, which might potentially bias the sample. Likewise, all demographic

data reported within this study were self-reported. The study did not follow an experimental

design, and therefore, cannot control for extraneous issues surrounding the participants.

Additionally, the underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) are underrepresented in comparison

to the upperclassmen (juniors and seniors) in this study due to admissions requirements of the

business school. Within the college many faculty taught both online and through traditional

means while others only taught in the traditional format. Another limitation was the variation of

pedagogical practices with individual professors, resulting in a variation of classroom

experiences from the students’ perspective. Additionally, some departments within the college

studied have a heavier online presence than their counterparts.

Operational Definition of Terms

For the purposes of the study, the following operational terms are defined below.

Emotion is “a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong

feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and

behavioral changes in the body” (Merriam-Webster, 2012, ¶1).

Emotional intelligence is

…the ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotion; the ability to access

and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion

and emotional knowledge, and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and

intellectual growth. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10)

Interpersonal skills are a measure of how proficient one is at interacting with others.

Some examples of interpersonal skills include but are not limited to a) comprehending what

others say; b) voicing your thoughts effectively; c) giving and receiving constructive criticism

for others; d) being influential to others; e) initiating proper conflict resolution; f) working with

others; and g) changing pace when unproductiveness occurs (Pennsylvania Department of

Education, 2012).

Online courses refer to classes in which interaction may be synchronous (facilitated in

real time) or asynchronous (self-paced) through web-based technologies. Students are not

required to appear in a classroom at scheduled times for lectures or other teaching centered

activities. However, students may be required to sit for proctored exams through web-based

technologies or on-campus proctors.

Traditional or face-to-face courses require students to appear in classrooms at scheduled

times for lectures or other teaching centered activities. These courses may or may not include

enhanced teaching and learning components via web-based technologies. Any technological

enhancements are at the discretion of the individual professor.

Traditional and non-traditional students refer to the age of the individual student.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, age is the most frequent defining

characteristic of the non-traditional population as follows:

Most often age (especially being over the age of 24) has been the defining characteristic

for this population. Age acts as a surrogate variable that captures a large, heterogeneous

population of adult students who often have family and work responsibilities as well as

other life circumstances that can interfere with successful completion of educational

objectives. Other variables typically used to characterize nontraditional students are

associated with their background (race and gender), residence (not on campus), and level

of employment (especially working fulltime). For this study, non-traditional students

will be identified by age alone. (U. S. Department of Education Institute of Education

Sciences National Center for Education Statistics, 2013)

Non-traditional students are those who are twenty-five years of age and older. Traditional

students are those under the age of 24.

Student classifications fall into four categories: a) freshmen; b) sophomores; c) juniors;

and d) seniors. To move from one classification to another, students must successfully complete

a specified set of course hours. Freshmen students are those who have completed between zero

and 31 hours of coursework. Students completing 32-63 hours of course work are identified as

sophomores. Students who have finalized between 64 and 95 hours are juniors, while seniors

have successfully fulfilled 96 or more hours of college credit.

CHAPTER II:

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Today’s employers do not have confidence in the abilities of the 21 st century college

graduates. In order for the U.S. to compete in a global economy, college graduates must be

prepared for the 21st century workplace. The future of American business competitiveness is

directly tied to the quality and skills of the current and incoming workforce; in fact, one survey

reports that 97% of business leaders consider workforce readiness of new hires a critical business

imperative (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2010). Yet, within the United States,

employers are complaining that today’s college graduates are not equipped with the necessary

interpersonal skills they need to succeed (Glenn, 2003; Harvard, 2011; James & James, 2004;

Perreault, 2004; Sharma, 2009; Wilhelm, 2004).

Interpersonal skills measure how proficient one is at interacting with others. Some

examples of interpersonal skills include but are not limited to a) comprehending what others say;

b) voicing your thoughts effectively; c) giving and receiving constructive criticism for others; d)

being influential to others; e) initiating proper conflict resolution; f) working with others; and g)

changing pace when unproductiveness occurs (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2012).

These skill sets are sometimes referred to as “soft skills,” “life skills,” “non-cognitive skills,”

and “21 st century skills.” Regardless of the terminology used, students who develop these

competencies will be at an even greater advantage in work and life (Huffcutt, Conway, Roth &

Stone, 2001; Klein, DeRouin & Salas, 2006). Howard Gardner’s (1983) Theory of Multiple

Intelligences refers to interpersonal intelligence as a person's ability to interact with and

understand other people and social situations. According to Perreault (2004), interpersonal

proficiencies are identified as character traits and the echelon of commitment that an individual

possesses which distinguishes him or her from others with similar skill sets and experience.

Additionally, these “soft skills" portray a set of abilities or talents that an individual brings to the

workplace such as team skills, communication skills, leadership skills, customer service skills,

and problem solving skills (James & James, 2004).

Marketplace Needs

A Woods-Bagot (2011) Research Study of 500 elite business executives found that 40%

of Chief Executive Officers (CEO), Chief Financial Officers (CFO), and Chief Operating

Officers (COO), known as the C-level or C-suite executives, consider college graduates

completely unprepared for the workplace. Business elites are defined as decision-makers who a)

hold the title of Principal, CEO, CFO, COO, Managing Director, Vice President (79%), or senior

level employees who ranked in the top 25% of company hierarchy (21%); b) work at companies

with 100 or more employees (one-quarter (24%) work at companies with more than 10,000

employees); c) work at companies where at least 25% of the workforce was comprised of

salaried employees; d) have decision-making authority when it comes to things like company

strategy, personnel oversight; e) earn upwards of $100,000 annually; and f) are at least 35 years

of age (Woods-Bagot, 2011). Additionally, the study found that approximately 47% of the C-

suite executives deem that less than one fourth of college graduates vying for positions within

their companies encompass the essential skills to advance past entry level positions (Woods-

Bagot, 2011).

According to the National Business Education Association (NBEA), the shortage of

skills falls within the emotional-social realm of human relations (Policies Commission for

Business and Economic Education [PCBEE], 2000). In a 2004 survey from the Information

Technology Association of America (ITAA), interpersonal skills were the highest rated attribute

in a potential employee.

Students can no longer expect to obtain jobs where simple repetition breeds success.

Instead, they must be able to communicate, share and use information to solve complex

problems; and adapt and innovate in response to new demands and constantly changing

circumstances (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2012). Jobs that existed ten years ago do

not exist today; jobs that exist today did not exist ten years ago; and there will be jobs in the

future that have not been invented yet. In fact, the top ten jobs in 2012 did not exist in 2004

(Fisch, McLeod, Brenman & Lednicky, 2012).

Interpersonal Skills

Interpersonal skills have become extremely important in all types of occupations. In fact,

these skills are so important that employers identify them as “the number one differentiator” for

job applicants in all types of industries (Sutton, 2002). Hiring individuals who possess

interpersonal skills is instrumental for high-performing organizations to retain a competitive

edge (Glenn, 2003). Additionally, employers rate soft skills highest in importance for entry-level

success in the workplace (Wilhelm, 2004).

According to North Carolina State University’s Student Health Center (2012), “People

learn interpersonal skills by interacting with family members, going to school, and socializing

with their peers. Healthy interpersonal skills reduce stress, resolve conflict, improve

communication, enhance intimacy, increase understanding, and promote joy” (¶ 1). However,

the developments of the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies have implications that challenge,

both locally and globally, this understanding of citizenship and engagement (Loader, 2007).

To effectively utilize interpersonal skills one most often must participate in direct

involvement with others, whether in group projects, schools, or within the larger community.

Interpersonal skills are stimulated by dialog, regarding others’ opinions and preferences, and

reading people. Concerns have been raised about the importance of interacting with others to

gain social competence as individuals who form “electronic friendships” with computers instead

of social relationships might be hindered in developing their interpersonal skills (Turkle, 2011).

Furthermore, computers are often used in solitude, robbing individuals of time for other social

activities and interfering with the development and maintenance of social relationships (Turkle,

2011). According to the video, Did You Know, one in eight marriages during 2012 were with

couples who met online; Facebook has 845 million active users; there are 50 million tweets

daily; and the number of text messages sent and received everyday exceeds the total population

of the planet (Fisch et al., 2012).

Emotional Intelligence

‘‘Emotions are brought into play most often by the actions of others, and, once aroused,

emotions influence the course of interpersonal transactions’’ (Ekman & Davidson, 1994, p. 139).

They have strong effects on subsequent behavior by influencing behavioral tendencies and their

motivational underpinnings (Scherer, 2005). Emotions also play an important role in the

coordination of social interactions and relationships (Keltner & Haidt, 2001) and serve important

communicative functions (Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan, & Aik, 2007) by providing information

about thoughts and intentions and the probable behavior of interaction partners. To benefit from

this information, emotions have to be processed as optimally as possible (Mayer & Salovey,

1997).

Trait vs. Ability Emotional Intelligence

The two types of EI are conceptually distinctive based on measurement methods used to

operationalize the constructs (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Cognitive-Emotional Ability also

known as Ability EI involves the actual ability to perceive, process and utilize affect- laden

information. This construct refers to the field of cognitive ability and should be gauged utilizing

maximum-performance tests (Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Petrides, Perez- Gonzalez & Furnham,

2007,). Trait EI also known as emotional self-efficacy relates to self- perceptions and

dispositions. This construct is measured by self-report questionnaires and is based primarily on

one’s personality. Ability and trait EI are two different constructs that utilize different construct

measurements (Copestake, Gray & Snowden, 2013; Petrides & Furnham, 2001; Petrides, Perez-

Gonzalez & Furnham, 2007). Several studies have found non-significant or low correlations

between trait and ability EI. These results support that the two types are conceptually dissimilar

(Bracket, Rivers Shiffman, Lerner & Salovey, 2006; Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004; O’Conner &

Little, 2003; Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). However, there are also a number of researchers

who believe the two models of trait and ability can coexist (Bar-On, 1995; Goleman, 1995; Tett,

Fox & Wang, 2005). Other researchers want to maintain the differences (Mayer et al., 2008).

Models of Emotional Intelligence

There are three competing models of EI that utilize different approaches and

measurements found in the literature and scholarly research today. Each of these models

conceptualized EI in one of two perspectives: ability or mixed model. Ability models focus on

EI as a pure form of mental intelligence (Mayer, 1999). Mixed models, on the other hand, utilize

both mental ability and personality traits (Bar-On, 2002). To date, the literature proposes one

ability model of EI by Mayer and Salovey and two mixed models of EI as suggested by Reuven

Bar-On and Daniel Goleman (Bar-On, 2002; Goldman, 2001).

Salovey, Mayer, and Caruso’s Model of Emotional Intelligence. EI is defined by

Salovey and Mayer (1997) as

The ability to perceive accurately, appraise and express emotion; the ability to access

and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion

and emotional knowledge, and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and

intellectual growth. (p. 10)

They identified EI as a form of pure intelligence or cognitive ability. Their theory combines

elements from the fields of intelligence and emotion. Emotions serve as signals that express

reliable and palpable meanings about relationships as many emotions are universal. Intelligence

incorporates the ability to carry out abstract reasoning (Mayer & Salovey, 1990; Mayer, Salovey

& Caruso, 2002).

The Ability Model of EI as developed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2004)

demonstrates an individual’s ability to reason with and about emotions. The Ability Model is

broken down into two areas of experiential and strategic emotional intelligence. Experiential EI

provides information on the ability to perceive emotional information, relate it to other

sensations and then use EI to facilitate thought. Strategic EI relates to the ability to understand

emotional information and use it strategically for planning and self-management. These two

areas are comprised of the four branches which incorporate the ability to a) perceive emotion, b)

use emotion to facilitate thought, c) understand emotions, and d) manage emotion (Mayer,

Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). See Figure 1.

These four branches are listed in succession from perception to management and

represent the degree to which the ability is more complex (Mayer, 1998, 2001) (see Figure 2).

The four branches of their model are

…arranged from more basic psychological processes to higher, more psychologically

integrated processes. For example, the lowest branch concerns the (relatively) simple

abilities of perceiving and expressing emotion; in contrast, the highest level branch

concerns the conscious, reflective regulation of emotion. (Salovey & Mayer, 1997, p. 36)

Figure 2. The Hierarchical Model of Emotional Intelligence (Wiegand, 2007).

The areas associated with perceiving emotion and using emotion to facilitate thought are

discrete areas of information processing that are bound within the emotional system. The first

step in understanding emotions is to accurately perceive them. In many situations this

incorporates the use of body language, facial expressions and intonation that are absent within

the online environment. These components are clues and insights into the emotional outlook of

others. Pentland (2008) suggested that our communication technologies treat people like, “cogs

in an information-processing machine” rather than as humans (p. 96). Perceiving emotions relies

on the ability to correctly identify the feelings of others. Individuals must be aware of their

emotions to accurately evaluate their surroundings that is also a key component of working well

with others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Using emotions to

facilitate thought focuses on the concept that individual emotions affect thought. As such,

individuals should link emotions and thinking for creative ideas, planning and interpersonal

relationships. Reasoning with emotions through the facilitation of thought helps individuals

prioritize and react effectively to others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,

2004).

Area three, understanding emotions, reflects the capacity to analyze emotions, appreciate

their probable trends overtime, and understand their outcomes. Emotional understanding is

insight to the self and others and requires emotional knowledge. It is this knowledge that assists

folks in understanding others better (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004).

The emotions one perceives can carry a wide variety of meanings, if someone is expressing

frustration, the observer must interpret the cause of their irritation and what it might mean.

Insights in the self and others require emotional knowledge that helps one understand people

better.

Finally, managing emotions is the ability to manage emotions in the context of individual

goals, self-knowledge and social awareness. Regulating emotions, responding appropriately and

responding to the emotions of others are all key ingredients of emotional management. To be

emotionally intelligent, individuals must be aware of their emotions and then use them to solve

problems for more positive outcomes (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,

2004). The ability to manage emotions is a key component of EI. Regulating emotions, replying

appropriately, and responding to the emotions of others are all important aspects of emotional

management and effective interpersonal skills.

The current measure of Mayer and Salovey’s ability model of EI is the Mayer Salovey

Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT V2.0). The test was designed for individuals

aged 17 or older. The initial sample for normative data was collected from 5,000 participants.

Reliability scores for the MSCEIT V2.0 are r = .91 for the full scale expert scoring, and r = .93

for consensus scoring (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Overall full-scale reliability is .91

with experiential reliability of .91, strategic reliability of .85 and branch score reliabilities

ranging from .74 to.89 (Mayer, 2002). Face validity was excellent for the MSCEIT V1.1.

However, the data for V2.0 has not been made publically available (Mayer et al., 2002).

Discriminant validity correlations were made between the MSCEIT and Bar-On Eq-I tests as

well as other personality tests with all being less than .25, suggesting the tests are unrelated to

minimally unrelated (Mayer et al., 2002). The MSCEIT V2.0 contains 141-items which utilize a

Likert scale and takes approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. It produces 15 total scores: a)

an overall score, b) two area scores, c) four branch scores and d) eight task scores (Mayer et al.

2002). This test is proprietary in nature and offered by the Multi-Health Systems (MHS)

Corporation. The cost associated with completing the MSCEIT test is approximately $110

(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2013).

From an organizational perspective, human resources areas such as hiring, promotion,

alignment, and succession planning benefit from employees completing the MSCEIT V2.0 test

as it provides direct, objective measures of actual EI functioning. It has been suggested the

MSCEIT V2.0 test renders employee recruitment and selection more efficient and reliable,

increases the efficacy of leadership development and other types of training, as well as

improving upon group processes (Multi-Health Systems Corporation, 2011). The MSCEIT V2.0

accelerates the coaching process by identifying needs early. As an individual, the MSCEIT 2.0

promotes self awareness, places current performance levels into perspective, and offers a

practical guide for improvement (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2013).

Assessment results are presented in a comprehensive Personal Summary Report that

offers graphical representations of the 15 separate EI scores as well as a detailed explanation of

the scores’ meaning. The test participants are asked to identify emotions expressed by a face or

in design, generate a mood and solve problems with the mood, define the causes of different

emotions, understand the progression of emotions and determine how to best include emotion in

situations which involve themselves and others. The abilities are measured through specific

tasks. For example, perception of emotion is measured by rating the extent and type of emotion

expressed on different types of pictures. Facilitation of thought is measured by asking people to

draw parallels between emotion and physical sensations (light, temperature, and color) as well as

emotional thoughts. Understanding is measured by asking the subject to explain how emotions

can blend from other emotions (i.e., how anger evolves into rage). Regulation or management of

emotions is measured by having people choose effective self and other management techniques

(Bracket & Mayer, 2003). Testing occurs through both the traditional paper and pencil test and

online testing. In the online version, scoring is automatic. In the traditional paper and pencil

test, the score sheet is mailed or faxed to the test publisher for scoring purposes.

The MSCEIT scores are reported like traditional intelligence scales so that the average

score is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. If a person obtains a MSCEIT score around

100, then they are in the average range of emotional intelligence. A person obtaining a

MSCEIT score of 115 is one standard deviation above the mean, or at the 84th percentile.

If someone obtains an overall MSCEIT score of 85, they are one standard deviation

below the mean, or at the 16th percentile. Area, branch and task level results are scored in

the same manner. As with all test, the MSCEIT compares individuals against the

normative sample, not with the population in general. (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2002b,

p. 71)

Bar-On’s Model of Emotional Intelligence. The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social

Intelligence (ESI) stresses the importance of emotional expression and views the outcome of

emotionally and socially intelligent behavior out of the works of Charles Darwin’s effective

adaptation. Charles Darwin published the first known work in the wider area of emotional-social

intelligence when he discussed the importance of emotional expression for survival and

adaptation (1872/1965). Additional influence is found from the aspects of Thorndike’s

description of social intelligence and its importance for human performance (1920). Bar-On

(2005) stated

From Darwin to the present, most descriptions, definitions and conceptualizations of

emotional-social intelligence have included one or more of the following key

components: a) the ability to recognize, understand and express emotions and feelings; b)

the ability to understand how others feel and relate with them; c) the ability to manage

and control emotions; d) the ability to manage change, adapt and solve problems of a

personal and interpersonal nature; and e) the ability to generate positive affect and be

self-motivated. (p. 3)

The Bar-On model identified “Social-Emotional Intelligence is a cross-section of

interrelated emotional and social competencies’ that determine how effectively individuals

understand and express themselves, understand others, relate with them, and cope with daily

demands” (p. 3). To be emotionally and socially intelligent requires that an individual, “express

oneself, relate well with others, and to successfully cope with daily demands, challenges and

pressures” (p. 3). At an interpersonal level, being emotionally and socially competent results in

the ability to effectively manage change by realistically and flexibly coping with the immediate

situation, solving problems and making decisions. To allow emotions to work “for us and not

against us” they must be managed effectively (Bar-On, 2005). Bar-On lists five meta factors and

15 conceptual components of emotional intelligence. The meta factors include intrapersonal,

interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood. Each of these meta factors are

made up of a number of closely related competencies, skills and facilitators including self-

regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, interdependence, self-actualization, empathy,

social responsibility, interpersonal relationships, reality testing, flexibility, problem solving,

stress tolerance, impulse control, optimism and happiness (2004, 2007).

The relationship between the Bar-On model and performance in the workplace has been

identified through at least four studies (Bar-On, 1997, 2004; Bar-On et al., 2005; Handley, 1997).

Based on the findings within these studies,

The most powerful ESI contributors to occupational performance are: (a) the ability to be

aware of and accept oneself; (b) the ability to be aware of others’ feelings, concerns and

needs; (c) the ability to manage emotions; (d) the ability to be realistic and put things into

perspective; and (e) the ability to have a positive disposition. (Bar-On, 2005, p. 16)

Scholars have shifted their attention from describing and assessing social intelligence to

understanding the purpose of interpersonal behavior and the role it plays in effective adaptability

(Zirkel, 2000). This line of research helped define human effectiveness from the social

perspective. Reuven BarOn’s work in EI has been used it to create his Emotional Quotient

Inventory (EQ-i). According to Multi-Health Systems Inc., BarOn’s (2004) research intent

...was to create a predictor of success. This self-assessment pinpoints the traits that allow

a person to succeed and those that stand in the way of progress. For this reason the tool is

particularly useful in personal and professional development. The EQ-i was the first

scientifically validated self-report measure of Emotional Intelligence, and it is still one of

the most widely used assessments for gauging EI. Research has demonstrated that an

individual's Emotional Intelligence is often a more accurate predictor of success than the

individual's IQ. No matter how intellectually intelligent someone is, their success is still

governed by how well they communicate their ideas and interact with their peers. (¶ 3)

This emotional intelligence approach addresses individual differences in emotional processing

(i.e., the ability to recognize, understand, use and regulate emotions) and assures that one can

process emotions in a more or less appropriate way (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

The EQ-I v2.0 is the recognized psychometric test for incorporating Bar-On’s Model of

Emotional and Social Intelligence. The test consists of 133 items and takes approximately 40

minutes to complete. The test does provide four validity indices. This measurement is used in

clinical, educational, forensic, medical, corporate, human resources and research settings. It is

also administered through MHS Corporation as a proprietary test (Multi-Health Systems

Corporation, 2011).

Goleman’s Model of Emotional and Social Competence Intelligence (ESCI).

Upon publishing a best seller, Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman (1995) argued

that EI was sometimes more significant that Intelligence Quotients (IQ) and strongly linked to

job performance. He describes emotional intelligence as a total of personal and social

competences. Personal competence determines how we manage ourselves, whereas social

competence determines how we handle our interpersonal relationships (Goleman, 1995).

Media outlets such as Time and USA Today Weekend Magazine bestowed EI stories

with publications and pronounced it to be a strong predictor of school, work performance and life

success. Goleman’s Model measures 18 competencies organized into four clusters: a) self-

awareness, b) self-management, c) social awareness, and d) relationship management. Self-

awareness is the capacity for understanding one’s emotions, strengths, and weaknesses. Self-

management is the capacity for effectively managing one’s motives and regulating one’s

behavior. Social awareness incorporates the ability to understand others’ words, feelings and

actions. Relationship management is the ability to get results from others and reach personal

goals (Goleman, 1995).

The instrument is designed for use only as a development tool, not for hiring or

compensation decisions (Wolff, 2006). The ESCI instrument is a proprietary tool available

through the Hay Group; considerations such as time and cost associated with administering the

test are not published on the site (The Hay Group, 2013).

Emotional Intelligence and Age

Intuitively, one might assume that emotional intelligence increases with age. From the

literature, EI is improved upon as one learns to be more aware of self – through evaluation and

regulation of moods and behaviors - thus, also able to handle distressing emotions and situations.

According to Mayer et al. (2000), matured and experienced individuals have the aptitude to sense

other’s feelings about their work environments and therefore exhibit higher levels of EI. Cooper

(1997) noted that individuals with high EI are proactive; begin with the end in mind; think

win/win; and seek first to understand then to be understood. Spencer and Spencer (1993)

regarded skills in recognizing others’ emotions along with the ability to use one’s emotions to

motivate others toward a common goal. A significant positive linear relationship between EI and

age was found by Ciarrochi and Ciarrochi (2001) as the age of the respondents increased EI also

increased in tandem.

While evidence that people can improve on emotional intelligence competencies comes

from a wide range of sources, one of the most recognized examples of the relationship between

age and experience occurs from longitudinal studies conducted at the Weatherhead School of

Management at Case Wester Reserve University (Boyaatzi, Cowan & Kolb, 2005). Students in

this study participated in a required course on competence building, which allowed students to

assess their emotional intelligence competencies. Objective assessment of students at the

beginning of the program, upon graduation and again years later on-the-job allows a unique

opportunity to help address the issue of whether emotional intelligence competencies can be

developed. The results of this research have shown that emotional intelligence competencies can

be significantly improved and moreover these improvements are sustainable over time.

In a comparative study of several hundred adults and adolescents, Salovey and Mayer

(1990) found that adults score higher on EI. Over 3000 men, women and children of varying

ages ranging from teems to 50s revealed a strong, steady significant increase in EI with

advancing age. Further, a peak was observed in the 40s age bracket. It was confirmed that EI

developed with age and job experience as a person progressed from childhood to adulthood.

Emotional Intelligence and Gender

Interpersonal skills incorporate a set of abilities or talents that an individual brings to the

table, whether at school, work, home or social settings. These abilities or talents could include

team skills, communication skills, leadership skills, customer service skills, and problem solving

skills (James & James, 2004). In reviewing literature, about the socialization process, one might

question whether one gender has an emotional intelligent advantage over the other? Research

demonstrates contradictory results (Brackett & Salovey, 2006).

Petrides and Furnman suggested that gender differences exist. Additionally, these

researchers view gender as a process in which situations and activities are characterized as

masculine or feminine. This socialization process begins at birth (2000). Families, schools,

peers and media, as part of the socialization process, encourage girls to be cooperative,

expressive and attuned to their interpersonal world. Boys, however, are led to be openly

competitive and independent (Petrides & Furnman, 2006). From childhood, literature suggests

that women are more likely to value nurturing and interconnectivity more than men (Gunkel,

Lusk, Wolff, & Li, 2007). From a workplace perspective, Reiff, Hatzes, Bramel, and Gibbon

indicate that work is gendered as women are less likely than men to ask for what they want

(2001). In life, whether in a professional or personal realm, one must negotiate opportunities to

access the “right” experiences, resources and positions. However, women are less likely to

negotiate (Reiff et al., 2007). Previous studies have found that women are slightly superior to

men in perceiving emotions, demonstrating greater abilities in social and emotional intelligence,

greater doubt about feelings and decisions, and less emphasis on the intellect (Ciarrochi, Chan, &

Caputi, 2002; Mayer & Geher, 1996; Wong & Law, 2002).

From previous studies it appears that gender differences associated with EI are

inconclusive. While some findings report women are more emotionally intelligent than men,

these findings are based on specific competencies. Women tend to have stronger aptitudes for

areas incorporating empathy and social skills, while mens’ scores demonstrate a proficiency in

self-regulation (Gunkel et-al., 2007; Petrides & Furnman, 2006). Other studies have found no

significant differences between genders. Goleman (1995) contended that no gender differences

exist, conceding that men and women while diverse in profiles of strengths and weaknesses will

overall have levels of EI that are equivalent. However, studies by Mayer et al. (1998) as well as

Mandell and Peherwani (2003) have found that women are more likely to score higher on

emotional intelligence scales than men, in both professional and personal environment.

Emotional Intelligence and Teamwork

Emotions are ever present in the educational environment. One area in which emotional

intelligence may be taught is within courses that require collaborative or team based activities

and assignments. Students enrolled in courses incorporating collaborative learning endeavors,

whether within the traditional or online environment, expand their opportunities to practice and

experience working toward a common goal, as well as achieving satisfaction in contributing to

the group performance and artifacts (Webb, 1995). Evidence shows that teamwork encourages

habitual use of higher level reasoning strategies, higher achievement, and more precise

assessments than individual endeavors (Clarke, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2004). In addition to

providing opportunities for students to gain new knowledge and abilities, teamwork cultivates EI

skillsets, which are necessary for working effectively with others. Additionally, these shared

encounters result in increased student maturity levels through cognitive processes, ethical or

moral decision making activities, and in considering the perspective of others throughout the

entire event.

When professors provide team-based activities, they often offer students an emotional

vocabulary, identify and model respectable behavior, mirror the behaviors, and encourage higher

levels of critical thinking and reflection. These activities are essential in the development of EI.

As the literature suggests, these skills are not learned in isolation. Zull (2002) observed that

social structures allow the exchange and development of emotions and that in the process, neural

connections and EI are strengthened with reciprocity in how these skills are learned: Interaction

between team members may facilitate and reinforce EI (Moriarty & Buckley, 2003). In the same

way, EI skills development may facilitate team-building efforts (Welch, 2003). Other research

suggests that teams with high levels of EI are more successful, specifically with higher problem-

solving abilities, better performance, and grades (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Yost & Tucker, 2000).

Team leaders with EI skillsets also facilitate better responses from their colleagues (Antonakis et

al., 2009; Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000; George, 2000).

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs)

Situational judgment tests are devised to gauge one’s judgment in various situations

(Christian, Edwards, & Bradley, 2010; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; O’Connell, Hartman,

McDaniel, Grub, & Lawrence, 2007). They are a step removed from direct observation and offer

insights associated with procedural knowledge in specific domains (e.g., interpersonal skills).

Within the SJTs, participants are asked to indicate from a list of responses how they would react

to written or video-based scenarios (Christian, Edwards, & Bradley, 2010; McDaniel, Hartman,

Whetzel, & Grubb, 2007). SJTs are an appealing method of measurement because they can be

employed to access a variety of constructs such as job performance, leadership, cognitive ability,

personality tendencies, integrity, interpersonal skills, and teamwork skills (Christean et al., 2010;

McDaniel & Nyguyen, 2001).

A study by Lievens and Sackett (2012) focused on the assessment of interpersonal skills

via SJTs. Key results found that procedural knowledge about interpersonal behavior as measured

with an SJT was valid for from college admission to internship (seven years later) and job

performance (nine years later) in medical students. Furthermore, students' procedural knowledge

as related to interpersonal behavior exhibited incremental validity over cognitive factors for

predicting academic and post-academic success. The study revealed not only the potential role

of interpersonal skills assessment via SJTs in higher education admissions but also to its

relevance in the employment world. Another key contribution of the study was the theoretical

support for a conceptual link between possessing procedural knowledge about interpersonal

behavior, translating that knowledge into actual interpersonal behavior in constrained settings

such as internships, and showing that interpersonal behavior later on the job (Lievens & Sackett,

2012).

The Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) was developed, according to the

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) paradigm by MacCann and Roberts (2008), as a new

evaluation tool for EI. These researchers have presented validity evidence for this test through

positive correlations with intelligence tests, divergent validity with respect to personality and for

the Multi-factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS). The 20-item STEM (α = .83) is found in

Appendix A. Unlike the other tests surrounding the concept of EI, these test items and scoring

protocol are publicly available and offered freely online to allow researchers to administer these

short forms for additional research purposes.

Emotional Learning (EL) is a process for developing the fundamental competencies for

effectiveness throughout life which imparts knowledge and allows opportunities for application

of the interpersonal skills needed to handle oneself, relationships, and work, ethically and

effectively (Collaborative for Academic, Social & Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2011). These

skills include recognizing and managing emotions, developing caring and concern for others,

establishing positive relationships, making responsible decisions, and handling challenging

situations constructively and ethically. They are the skills that allow individuals to establish

relationships, resolve conflicts, contain emotions and make ethical and safe choices (CASEL,

2011).

Intelligence describes aggregate abilities, competencies and skills as a collection of

knowledge used to cope with life effectively. Yet, EI asks the question of what is more

important, the situation, or the person? Those who master the competencies associated with EI,

regardless of training and experience, maintain the most successful careers. Yet, EI is also

considered a lifetime journey of self-discovery (Bar-On, 2004).

Within the fields of business and psychology, interpersonal skills are often entwined

within EI. Howard Gardner (1983) is credited with the concept of emotional intelligence. The

concept of multiple intelligences actually refers to EI in the form of intrapersonal and

interpersonal intelligence (Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker 2004). Gardner (1993) stated that “in an

advanced form, interpersonal knowledge permits a skilled adult to read the intentions and

desires—even when these have been hidden . . . and potentially, to act upon this knowledge—for

example, by influencing . . . to behave along desired lines” (p. 240).

Successive researchers within the field of psychology have also supported that

interpersonal skills or interpersonal intelligence is an essential part of emotional intelligence.

Bar‑On (2004) include dthe interpersonal emotional quotient in their understanding of

emotional intelligence, which includes empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal

relationships. Weisinger’s (1998) model of emotional intelligence included two interpersonal

variables: “emotional mentoring” and “relating well.” Scholarly activities within the field of

management also link emotional intelligence to interpersonal skills (Brown & Moshavi 2005;

Groves, McEnrue, & Shen 2008; Quebbeman & Rozell 2002). Thus, interpersonal skills as a key

element in emotional intelligence are highly regarded by management scholars (Butler &

Chinowsky 2006; Riggio 1986). Afolabi, Ogunmwonyi, and Okediji (2009) conducted a study

with undergraduates and found emotional intelligence to have a significant influence on

interpersonal relationships: t(109) = 1.83; P < .05). In 2004, Afolabi also found a positive

relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal relationships among work teams as

well as a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal relationships.

These studies also found support in the works of Salovey and Mayer (1990), who in their own

research found that emotionally intelligent individuals will also have good interpersonal skills.

Online Learning

The educational environment has changed significantly over the past decade or so largely

due to the advent of educational technology incorporating the Internet and online learning

programs (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Technology has changed the very nature of teaching,

learning and school environments from preschool to graduate school. As technologies have

improved, become less expensive, more available and easier to use, post-secondary learners have

drifted toward asynchronous learning as it offers both convenience and flexibility. With such a

tremendous use of online resources for communicating in not only social settings, but

educational settings as well, could interpersonal skills gaps be more likely to occur with online

students rather than those participating in the traditional college experience? At the moment no

measures exist which assess these skills in online environments (Loader, 2007). Yet, the online

environment continues to grow at a ten percent rate each year that exceeds the one percent

growth rate of the total higher education population. In the fall of 2010, approximately 560,000

learners joined the higher education online environment for a total of 6.1 million students. These

results demonstrate that approximately one-third of all college students are now at least partially

participating in the online learning environment (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Yet, there is little

research on how or if asynchronous learning affects undergraduate students’ interpersonal skills

(Doo, 2006). Turkle (2011) described today’s connective technologies as a means to promote

always being elsewhere emotionally and socially.

What are the views on online education when compared to the traditional format? Going

the Distance: Online Education in the United States is the ninth annual report on the state of

online learning in the United States post-secondary institutions and was based on data collected

from over 2,500 colleges and universities and showed:

An increase in the number of academic leaders who believe online learning is ‘at least as

good as’ – those who rate online as either the same or superior to face-to-face instruction.

This proportion now represents just over two-thirds of all survey respondents, up from

fifty-seven percent in the first year of the study in 2003. (Allen & Seaman, 2011, p. 5)

In regard to student-to-student interactions and overall communication, the traditional format

was viewed as superior by academic leaders. The perceived value and legitimacy of online

education varied by faculty and between colleges and universities. However, institutions which

offer only online courses, and those that offer both online courses and full online programs report

that only seven percent of the faculty do not fully accept online education (Allen & Seaman,

2011). Furthermore, professors perceive interpersonal skills to be inferior in the asynchronous

environment when compared with the traditional face-to-face atmosphere (Allen & Seaman,

2011).

The literature supports the conclusion that interpersonal skills proficiency is important to

potential employers. Technology has changed the work world as automated machinery has the

capability of completing routine tasks. Additionally, online communal networks are

transforming social relationships. Since many employees are reported to be deficient in “soft

skills,” research is needed to determine which elements of interpersonal skills to research.

In 2002, Sloan C reported that 9.6% of U.S. students were enrolled in online courses. By

2011, nine years later, this number has grown substantially to 31.3%. The literature reports that

one-half million new students entered into the online education environment in 2011 alone

(Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Professors perceive interpersonal skills to be inferior in the asynchronous environment

when compared with the traditional face-to-face atmosphere (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Yet, there

is little research on how or if asynchronous learning affects undergraduate students’ interpersonal

skills (Doo, 2006).

Colleges and universities must adapt to the changing needs of both the students and

workplace. “To best prepare students for the jobs that will be available in the future, educators

need to anticipate emerging trends and reconsider the kind of skill development they are

promoting” (League for Innovation in the Community College, 1995, ¶ 7). Yet, the marketplace

is defined by global competition, rampant change, fast flows of information and communication,

increasing complexity and ubiquitous globalization (The Conference Board et al., 2006).

Knowing that colleges must better prepare tomorrow’s workforce with the skills

previously identified as essential for success in the 21st century marketplace, one must address if

asynchronous education limits students’ opportunities to practice and implement interpersonal

skills. Does asynchronous education fail to offer students a place to enhance and practice

interpersonal interactions and thereby fail to prepare them for today’s marketplace?

Academic leaders at institutions with online offerings currently hold a more favorable opinion of

the learning outcomes of online education. Furthermore, over two-thirds of post-secondary

faculty rates the online educational environment to be either the same or superior to the

traditional face-to-face setting. While many of the academic leaders perceive online education to

be at least as good as face-to-face instruction, one dimension falls short of this attitude.

Interpersonal skills are estimated to be inferior in the online atmosphere when compared with the

face-to-face environment (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Interpersonal skills research rarely occurs despite its significance to the individual’s life

as it is difficult to distinguish interpersonal skills from other cognitive, psychomotor, or affective

components like personalities (Doo, 2006). Additionally, some individuals may presume that

interpersonal skills will not increase through educational opportunities. Personality and

interpersonal or social skills are related, yet, personality is not easily changed while interpersonal

skills can be developed and improved upon through training (Ferris, Whitt, & Hochwarter, 2001;

Geher, 2004). Improving interpersonal skills helps individuals enrich relationships, cope better at

work and in social situations, and especially when dealing with difficult or challenging

individuals. As the trend of online education expands, some faculty question whether an online

education provides students with the proper development of interpersonal relationships and

social skills (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Merging Marketplace Needs, Interpersonal Skills, and Online Learning

According to a Harvard survey (2011), the successful college graduate must possess a

ratio of 80% emotional-social intelligence (ESI) to 20% book smarts. Career-minded individuals

will need to display foresight in navigating a rapidly shifting economic landscape. They will

need to reassess the skills they need and quickly put together the right resources to develop and

update skill sets (Glenn, 2003; Harvard, 2011; James & James, 2004; League for Innovation in

the Community College, 1995; Mitchell, Skinner, & White, 2010; Perreault, 2004; Sharma,

2009; Wilhelm, 2004).

The career-minded graduate is one who can adapt, manage stress, incorporate teamwork

and help others. Yet, a 2010 University of Michigan study utilizing fourteen thousand college

students over the past thirty years, from 1979 through 2009, shows that over the past nine years,

young people have demonstrated a dramatic decline in interest in other people (University of

Michigan, 2010). Additionally, the report suggests that college students do not understand the

value of viewing a situation from another person’s perspective. Sarah Konrath, a researcher at

the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, reported that “Many see the current

group of college students, sometimes called ‘Generation Me’ as one of the most self-centered,

narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic in recent history” (University of

Michigan, 2010, ¶. 7).

In 1991, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Secretary of Labor appointed The Secretary's

Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) to determine the skills that young people

needed to succeed in the work world. The Commission's fundamental purpose was to encourage

a high-performance nation characterized by high-skill, high-wage employment with a primary

objective of helping educators understand how curriculum and instruction must change to enable

students to develop the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. Interpersonal skills were listed

as one of five workplace competencies necessary for accomplishing this objective (U.S.

Department of Labor, 1991). The commission identified interpersonal skills as the ability to

work well with others by a) participating as a team member who contributes to group effort; b)

teaching others new skills; c) serving others by working to meet their expectations; d) exercising

leadership through communicating ideas, justifying positions, persuading and/or convincing

others, and challenging procedures and policies in a responsible manner; e) negotiating for

agreements related to exchange of resources and resolving divergent interest; and f) working

well with diversity (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991).

Colleges and universities are known for teaching content through specific, teachable

abilities that can be defined and measured. In contrast, emotional intelligence (EI) skills

incorporate the qualities of personal attributes that enhance an individual's interactions, job

performance and career prospects (Sharma, 2009). Today’s marketplace requires both elements

to successfully work in teams, multitask and think critically and creatively (Harvard, 2011;

James & James, 2004).

Summary

It appears that today’s employers do not have confidence in the abilities of 21st Century

college graduates. One shortcoming, found by both college professors and employers, falls under

the realm of interpersonal skills. As the trend of online education expands, professors have

questioned whether an online education provides students with the proper development of

interpersonal relationships and social skills (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Interpersonal skills research, while highly significant to individual lives, rarely occurs

due to the challenging task of distinguishing interpersonal skills from other cognitive,

psychomotor, or affective components such as personality (Doo, 2006). Additionally,

presumptuous individuals may believe that interpersonal skills will not increase through

educational opportunities. Personality and interpersonal or social skills are related, yet,

personality is not easily changed while interpersonal skills can be developed and improved upon

through training (Ferris, Whitt, & Hochwarter, 2001; Geher, 2004).

It is believed that improving interpersonal skills will help individuals enrich relationships,

cope better at work, and in social situations and especially when dealing with difficult or

challenging individuals. It appears that research should be conducted to determine, first, whether

or not asynchronous education limits students’ opportunities to practice and improve upon

interpersonal skills or fails to offer students a place enhance and practice interpersonal

interactions when compared to student enrolled in traditional environments.

CHAPTER III:

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the interpersonal abilities of online students to

traditional students by evaluating their EI through the Situational Test of Emotional Management

(STEM). The study also sought to determine if there is a relationship between the age, gender

and number of online courses completed and EI abilities of online students.

Research Design

This quantitative study was descriptive in nature, as it provided information about the

behavior of the participants. Additionally, it was a cross-sectional study at the individual student

level as information was collected from individual students at one point in time. This study

demonstrated relationships and the educational environment as it existed at the time of the study

by utilizing a situational judgment test for current abilities associated with emotional intelligence

and a survey styled questionnaire for the collection of demographic data.

Participant Population

Utilizing a convenience sample, the study occurred at one regional university in the

southeast that provides educational opportunities for students within four colleges: arts and

sciences, business, education and human environmental sciences, and nursing and allied health.

The campus is located in the southeastern United States in a four-city metropolitan area with

approximately 140,000 people. During the Fall 2013 term, the university enrolled 6,931 students,

5,993 of whom were pursuing an undergraduate degree. The students at this university

represented 43 countries in addition to the United States. Approximately 57% of the students

were female with a male population of 43%. Seventy-seven percent of the student body were

residents of the state in which the college is located, 18% of the student body were non-residents

while 5% of the population consisted of international students.

From reports published on the study site, the average age of new freshmen is 18.3, while

the average age of all freshmen is 19.1. The average undergraduate age is 22.6. This result

implies the overall student population within the undergraduate community falls into the

traditional age bracket of 19-24 years of age.

Campus-wide, 30% of the undergraduate student population at the time of the study was

enrolled in at least one course online, with an additional 7% of the undergraduate student

population completing all courses online during the Fall 2013 term. The campus wide numbers

closely match national percentages as reported by the Sloan Consortium Reports created by

Allen and Seaman (2011) in online learning.

Sampling

Upon reviewing statistical data associated with the student population of the institution in

question, the researcher elected to conduct the study within only one college of the regional

university. The rationale associated with this decision is discussed within this section of the

paper.

The largest percentage of online course offerings and student enrollments associated with

completing at least one course online at the university were found specifically within the College

of Business (CoB). Within the CoB, there are four departments: a) the Department of Accounting

and Business Law accounts for 20.9% of the business student population (n = 179); b) the

Department of Computer Science and Information Systems accounts for 13.7% of the student

body within the college ( n = 117); c) the Department of Economics and Finance contains 12.8%

of business students; and d) the Department of Management and Marketing hosts the largest

student population within the college at 22.5% ( n = 336). These four departments are further

subdivided into eight majors. The Department of Accounting and Business Law offers a major

in accounting. Computer Science and Information Systems offers two degree programs. Option I

is Enterprise Information Systems. End-User Computing Systems is Option II. The degree

programs of Economics, Professional Finance, and Banking and Financial Services are housed

within the Department of Economics and Finance. Additionally all administrative

responsibilities for undecided business majors are housed within this department. Undecided

students account for 13.3% (n = 114) of the total population within the business school.

Professional Management and Professional Marketing degree programs are available in the

Department of Management and Marketing.

During the Fall 2013 term, there were approximately 856 undergraduate students enrolled

within the CoB, which represents approximately 15% of the undergraduate student body.

Approximately 50% of all online offerings at this university were in the undergraduate CoB

program. When adding graduate courses into the mix, approximately 80% of the online

offerings campus-wide were housed in the CoB. Forty-nine percent of the undergraduate

business students were taking at least one course online during the study. Another 7% of the

undergraduate business students were completing all courses online during the same period. Due

to the small number of faculty within the CoB (n = 39), it was unlikely to have different

professors teach the online and FtF classes, meaning that a course offered in both formats will be

taught by only one professor, possibly eliminating the concern or limitation of instructional

differences among the traditional and online formats. Additionally, the CoB has implemented a

standardized online course structure to assist in the navigation and orientation process for online

students. This standardization was likely to reduce student confusion and frustration associated

with online courses allowing both faculty and students to focus on the process of teaching and

learning the specified subject matter. All undergraduates within the college were asked to

participate in the study.

Instrumentation

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are devised to gauge one’s judgment in various

situations (Christian, Edwards, & Bradley, 2010; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; O’Connel,

Hartman, McDaniel, Grub & Lawrence, 2007). SJTs are an appealing method of measurement

because they can be employed to access a variety of constructs such as job performance,

leadership, cognitive ability, personality tendencies, integrity, interpersonal skills, and teamwork

skills (Christian et al., 2010; McDaniel & Nyguyen, 2001).

The Situational Test of Emotional Management (STEM) was used to measure the level of

ability EI as an indicator of interpersonal skills. It was developed according to the Situational

Judgment Tests (SJTs) paradigm by MacCann and Roberts (2008). Validity evidence for this test

is available through positive correlations with intelligence tests, divergent validity with respect to

personality and for the Multi-factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS). The 20-item STEM

(α = .83) is found in Appendix A. Test items and scoring protocol are publicly available and

offered freely online to allow researchers to administer these short forms for additional research

purposes. Additional demographic questions have been added to the original survey and can be

found in Appendix B.

Data Collection

Upon receiving IRB approval, the primary investigator (PI) requested and received an e-

mail address list for all undergraduate majors and minors within the College of Business at the

university to be studied. The compiled address list contained 765 undergraduate business majors

and 91 undergraduate business minors for a total sample of 856. On September 9, 2013, the e-

mail advertisement/informed consent letter, found in Appendix C, which contained a link to the

Qualtrics survey, was sent to the students. Additionally, a cover letter, found in Appendix D, and

the e-mail advertisement/ informed consent letter was sent to all 39 undergraduate faculty within

the College of Business. Faculty were asked to both announce the study in their face to face

classes and send an e-mail to online students with e-mail advertisement/informed consent

statement to their students whether in the online or traditional environment. All undergraduate

students within the College of Business received an e-mail request as well as two follow-up

requests, found in Appendix E, to participate in the study. Consent was obtained, when the

student elected to complete the survey as the e-mail contained the consent letter which included a

link to the Qualtrics survey.

The survey was open for a period of three weeks. On Monday of week one, the initial

request to participate was be e-mailed. On Monday of weeks two and three the follow-up request

to participate was e-mailed to all 856 undergraduates. The repeat messages were sent to all

students as the PI did not know which students from the sample population had completed the

survey as it was anonymous. Students completed a one-time survey containing 30 questions in

total. Within the first 20 questions students were presented with a few brief details about an

emotional situation, and asked to choose from four responses what they believed was the most

effective course of action to manage both the emotions the person was feeling and the problems

they faced in that situation. Although more than one course of action might be acceptable,

students were asked to choose what they thought was the most effective response for that person

in the specified situation. The remaining ten questions related to age, gender, classification,

major, department, number of courses completed online, communication and teamwork.

Upon completion of collecting data, information was coded and entered into SPSS

software for analysis. The STEM test provided a best answer approach as determined by subject

matter experts for each question. Descriptive statistics were used to identify missing data,

identify result ranges, and expound upon frequencies, proportions and percentages associated

with gender, age and online course experience of the respondents. Cronbach's alpha was used to

determine internal consistency and reliability. To ensure maximum reliability and establish

further relationships among the data, item-to-total correlations were identified. The standard

error of measurement gauged potential error within the study's results. An independent t-test

determined if any significant differences exist between online and traditional students on the

basis of age or gender. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) investigated whether the total

of previous online courses completed had a significant relationship to the EI of students as a

gauge of interpersonal skills. Upon seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval at

institutions associated with the current study, data were collected during the Fall 2013 term from

the COB within the same regional university utilizing an online survey instrument known as

Qualtrics.

Data Analysis

Upon collecting data, survey data were coded and entered into SPSS software for

analysis. The STEM test, available online, provided a best answer approach as determined by

subject matter experts for each question. Descriptive statistics were used to identify missing

data, identify result ranges, and expound upon frequencies, proportions and percentages

associated with gender, age and online course experience of the respondents. Cronbach’s alpha

determined internal consistency and reliability. To ensure maximum reliability and establish

further relationships among the data, item-to-total correlations were identified. The standard

error of measurement gauged potential error within the study’s results. An independent t-test

determined if any significant differences exist between online and traditional students on the

basis of age or gender. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to investigate

whether the total of previous online courses completed has a significant relationship to the EI of

students as a gauge of interpersonal skills.

CHAPTER IV:

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the interpersonal abilities of online students to

traditional students by evaluating their EI through the Situational Test of Emotional Management

(STEM). The study sought to determine if there was a relationship between the number of online

courses completed and EI abilities of students. Additionally, the study examined demographic

data such as age, gender and classification for any relationships associated with EI abilities of

students. Finally, the study evaluated whether a relationship exists between teamwork

components of courses and students’ EI abilities. As previously stated the study was descriptive

in nature, as it provided information about the behavior of the participants. Additionally, it was a

cross-sectional study at the individual student level as information will be collected from

individual students at one point in time. This study demonstrated relationships and the

educational environment as it currently exists by utilizing a situational judgment test for current

abilities associated with emotional intelligence and a survey styled questionnaire for the

collection of demographic data. This chapter provides the quantitative analyses of data collected

in the study. Survey data were coded and entered into version 21 of the SPSS software for

analysis. This chapter provides the various findings within this study. Unless otherwise specified,

an alpha level of .05 was employed for all statistical tests. Descriptive statistics were used to

identify missing data, identify result ranges, and expound upon frequencies, proportions and

percentages associated with gender, age and online course experience of the respondents.

Descriptive Statistics

The sample for this study included 856 students comprised of 765 undergraduate business

majors and 91 undergraduate business minors. Additionally, with the assistance of the

undergraduate professors, some undecided and elective business students also participated in the

study. During the Fall 2013 term, there were 646 non-business majors or minors enrolled in

undergraduate business classes. While these individuals were not specifically targeted for the

study, faculty notified students of the study and encouraged 89 students to participate for a

response rate of 13% of non- major students. A total of 393 survey responses from business

majors, business minors and non-business students were received. Upon subtracting the non-

major respondents (n = 89) from the total received it was determined that 304 of the 865 targeted

participants were reached for a 35% response rate. Utilizing SPSS and the descriptive statistics

feature, 46 surveys were eliminated from the study. Thirty-nine of these surveys were discarded

due to incomplete information while seven surveys were rejected as students listed a graduate

classification which did not meet the specified perimeters of the study, resulting in an adjusted

targeted response rate of 30%.

From the 347 completed responses, 43.5% were male (n = 151) while the remaining

56.5% (n = 196) were female participants. Regarding age, 82.1% (n = 285) of the participants

fell in the traditional college age range of 19-24, while 17.9% (n = 62) indicated an age range of

the non-traditional student, which is 25 or older. Additionally, respondents were categorized into

four undergraduate grade classifications: a) freshmen, b) sophomores, c) juniors, and d) seniors.

Table 1 illustrates these results.

Self-reported survey data also showed that approximately 14% (n = 49) of the

respondents characterize themselves as online students while 86% (n = 298) regard themselves

as traditional students. The 14% of self-identified online students is double the actual online

student percentage of 7% as reported by the university.

Table 1

Survey Respondents by Classification

Classification Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

Freshman 12 3.5 3.5

Sophomore 53 15.3 18.7

Junior 153 44.1 62.8

Senior 129 37.2 100

An additional survey question addressed the communications preference of the students.

Results suggest that only 16.7% (n=58) of students prefer online communications to the

traditional classroom communications experience, while 83.3% (n = 289) of the students prefer

the traditional classroom communication environment to the online experience.

As part of the demographic data collected, students were asked to identify the total

number of courses which they had completed online. Students were offered three response

ranges: a) none, b) one to four, and c) five or more. Over half of the students surveyed self-

reported that they completed between one and four online courses. Table 2 illustrates the survey

responses.

Since teamwork is an instrumental element of interpersonal communications

undertakings, students were asked if they had participated in online and/or traditional courses

that offered teamwork activities and assignments. Fifty-seven percent (n=196) of the students

had completed online courses which required team based activities, while 43% (n = 151) had not

been required to complete teamwork in the online environment. Within the traditional

classroom, 91.9% (n = 319) of students participated in a team-based assignment or activity with

only 8.1% (n = 28) of the participants indicating no team-based work in the traditional classroom

environment.

Table 2

Number of Courses Completed Online

Number of Courses Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

0 50 14.4 14.4

1-4 198 57.1 71.5

5 or More 99 28.5 100

As previously stated the CoB is divided into four departments: a) the Department of

Accounting and Business Law, b) the Department of Computer Science and Information

Systems, c) the Department of Economics and Finance, and d) the Department of Management

and Marketing. Table 3 illuminates the respondents by department within the CoB.

Table 3

Respondents by Department

Department Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

Accounting & Business Law 63 18.2 18.2

Computer Science & Information Systems 46 13.3 31.4

Economics & Finance 30 8.6 40.1

Management & Marketing 119 34.3 74.4

Other 89 25.6 100

These four departments are further subdivided into eight majors. Table 4 illuminates the

respondents by major within the CoB.

Table 4

Respondents by Major

Major Frequency Percentage Cumulative

Percentage

Accounting 63 18.2 18.2

Enterprise Information Systems 10 2.9 21.1

End-User Computing Systems 16 4.6 25.7

Economics 9 2.6 28.3

Professional Finance 12 3.5 31.8

Banking and Financial Services 9 2.6 34.4

Management 56 16.1 50.5

Marketing 41 11.8 62.3

Undecided 42 12.1 74.4

Other 89 25.6 100

Quantitative Results

Reliability and Validity

Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine internal consistency and reliability for survey

questions 1 through 20. To ensure maximum reliability and establish further relationships among

the data, item-to-total correlations were also identified. Alpha coefficients range in value from 0

to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability of factors extracted from dichotomous and/or

multi-point formatted questionnaires or scales. Higher scores indicate more reliable results. The

original 20-item STEM instrument reported α = .83. Nunnaly (1978) has indicated .7 to be an

acceptable reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes used in the literature.

Upon calculating the initial test of reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha was .686. To ensure a score

above .7, questions 9 (α= .693); 1 (α = .699); and 11 (α = .704) would need to be eliminated.

Since the original 20-item STEM test reported a strong Cronbach’s Alpha (α = .83), the PI did

not eliminate the three questions to maintain the integrity of the initial survey. Validity evidence

for this test is available from the STEM test creators through positive correlations with

intelligence tests, divergent validity with respect to personality and for the Multi-factor

Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS).

Research Question 1

Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of online and traditional

students? Emotional Intelligence results relevant to the type of student were used in conducting

a t-test to determine if significance exists in the emotional intelligence between online and

traditional students. The results were calculated using five basic assumptions: a) data were

metric; b) samples were independent; c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .011 > .01, verifying

homogeneity of variance; and e) Kolmogorov-Smirnov .092 > .01, .000 < .01, which did not

depart significantly from the normal on the basis of the central limit theorem. “When a sample

size is greater than 30, the approximation of the sampling distribution to a normal distribution is

usually quite close even if the population is not normally distributed” (Hinkle, Wiersma & Jurs,

2003, p. 164). Grounded in this information, the data did not depart significantly from normal.

The means and standard deviations by type of student (online or traditional) are summarized in

the group statistics found in Table 5.

Table 5

Group Statistics for EI Scores by Type of Student

Group Statistics N M SD Std. Error Mean

Online Students 49 12.22 4.124 .589

Traditional

Students

298 12.13 3.221 .187

The t-test found no significant differences, t(345) = 6.530, p = .862. Because the p-value

is greater than .05, there is no significant difference between the online and traditional students

and their emotional intelligence scores. The t-test equality of means summary table for emotional

intelligence scores by type of student is found in Table 6.

Table 6

t-test for Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Type of Student

95% Confidence

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Lower

Equal variances

assumed

.862 .090 .518 -.929

Equal variances

not assumed

.884 .090 .618 -1.147

Research Question 2

Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence scores of students based on

the number of online courses completed? A one way ANOVA was used to determine whether

there are differences in the EI scores of students based on the number of online courses

completed: a) zero, b) 1 - 4, or c) five or more. Results indicated F(2, 344) = 5.465, p = .005.

The standard deviations and means associated with the number of online courses completed are

located in Table 7.

Table 7

Group Statistics for the Number of Online Courses Completed

N M SD Std. Error

0 50 10.74 3.069 .434

1-4 198 12.30 3.450 .245

5 or More 99 12.56 3.147 .316

Total 347 12.15 3.356 .180

The analysis revealed a significant F ratio of 5.465 (p = .005), which indicated there was

significance among the groups. To highlight these differences, a follow up Tukey Post Hoc test

indicated that the group taking no online courses had a significantly different EI score when

compared to students taking 1 - 4 online courses (p = .009). Students within the traditional

environment, who have not completed any online courses, scored significantly lower (M = 10.74,

SD = 3.069) on the situational judgment test than students taking 1 - 4 online courses (M =

12.30, SD = 3.450). Another significant difference was found among the students completing

zero online courses and those completing five or more online courses (p = .005). The STEM

outcome conveyed that traditional students, who have not completed any online courses, scored

significantly lower (M = 10.74, SD = 3.069) than students completing five or more courses

online (M = 12.15, SD = 3.356). ANOVA results associated with the number of online courses

completed are contained in Table 8.

Table 8

ANOVA Table by Number of Online Classes Completed

SS Df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 120.021 2 60.010 5.465 .005

Within Groups 3777.484 344 10.981

Total 3897.504 346

Research Question 3

Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students on the basis of

age? The results were calculated using five basic assumptions: a) data were metric; b) samples

were independent; c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .940 > .01, verifying homogeneity of

variance; and e) Kolmogorov-Smirnov .000 < .01, .23>.01, which did not depart significantly

from the normal on the basis of the central limit theorem. “When a sample size is greater than 30,

the approximation of the sampling distribution to a normal distribution is usually quite close

even if the population is not normally distributed” (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003, p. 164).

Based on this information, the data did not depart significantly from normal. Table 9 describes

the means and standard deviations by age of student.

Table 9

Group Statistics by Age of Student

Group Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

19-24 285 12.22 3.314 .196

25 or older 62 11.79 3.549 .451

A t-test found no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of students on the

basis of age, t(345) = .006, p = .357. Because the p-value is greater than .05, there is no

significant difference between the online and traditional students and their emotional intelligence

scores. The means and standard deviations by age of student are summarized in the group

statistics found in Table 9. The t-test equality of means summary table for emotional intelligence

scores by age of student is found in Table 10.

Table 10

t-test for Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Student Age

95% Confidence

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Lower

Equal variances

assumed

.357 .434 .470 -.491

Equal variances

not assumed

.380 .434 .492 -.543

Research Question 4

Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students on the basis of

gender? The results were calculated using five basic assumptions: a) data were metric; b)

samples were independent; c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .103 > .01, verifying

homogeneity of variance; and e) Kolmogorov-Smirnov .000 < .01, .000 < .01, which did not

depart significantly from the normal on the basis of the central limit theorem. “When a sample

size is greater than 30, the approximation of the sampling distribution to a normal distribution is

usually quite close even if the population is not normally distributed” (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs,

2003, p. 164). Based on this information, the data did not depart significantly from normal. The

means and standard deviations by student gender are summarized in the group statistics found in

Table 11.

Table 11

Group Statistics by Student Gender

Group Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Male 151 11.38 3.532 .287

Female 196 12.73 3.097 .221

A t-test found significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of students on the basis

of gender, t(345) = 2.673, p < .01. Because the p-value is less than .01, there is a significant

difference between the online and traditional students and their emotional intelligence scores.

Females completing the study, scored significantly higher (M = 12.73, SD = 3.097) than their

male counterparts (M = 11.38, SD = 3.532). The t-test equality of means summary table for

emotional intelligence scores by student gender is found in Table 12.

Table 12

t-test for Equality of Means based on EI Scores by Student Gender

95% Confidence

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Lower

Equal variances

assumed

.000 -1.351 .357 -2.052

Equal variances

not assumed

.000 -1.351 .363 -2.064

Research Question 5

Is there a significant difference between EI abilities of students on the basis of

classifications? For the purpose of this study, classifications refer to undergraduate freshmen,

sophomores, juniors and seniors. The results were calculated using five basic assumptions: a)

data were metric; b) samples were independent; c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .798 > .01,

verifying homogeneity of variance; and e) Shapiro-Wilk .288> .01, .090 > .01, .003 < .01, and

.000<.01, which did not depart significantly from the normal on the basis of the central limit

theorem. “When a sample size is greater than 30, the approximation of the sampling distribution

to a normal distribution is usually quite close even if the population is not normally distributed”

(Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003, p. 164). Based on this information the data did not depart

significantly from normal. The means and standard deviations by student classification are

summarized in the group statistics found in Table 13.

Table 13

Group Statistics by Student Classification

Group Statistics N M SD Std. Error Mean

Freshman 12 12.17 3.099 .895

Sophomore 53 12.34 3.674 .505

Junior 153 12.12 3.372 .273

Senior 129 12.10 3.259 .287

A one way ANOVA was used to determine that there is no significant difference in the EI

abilities of students on the basis of classification, F (3, 343) = .70, p = .976. The ANOVA table

for emotional intelligence scores of students by classification is found in Table 14.

Research Question 6

Is there a significant difference in the EI abilities of students who participated in course

teamwork activities and students who did not participate in teamwork activities? The results

were calculated using five basic assumptions: a) data were metric; b) samples were independent;

c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .009 > .01, verifying homogeneity of variance; and e)

Shiapiro –Wilk .000 < .01, .902 > .01, .424 > .01, .050 > .01, which did not depart significantly

from the normal on the basis of the central limit theorem.

Table 14

ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students by Classification

SS Df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 2.379 3 .793 .070 .976

Within Groups 3895.126 343 11.356

Total 3897.504 346

“When a sample size is greater than 30, the approximation of the sampling distribution to

a normal distribution is usually quite close even if the population is not normally distributed”

(Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003, p. 164). Based on this information, the data did not depart

significantly from normal. The means and standard deviations by department are summarized in

the group statistics found in Table 15.

Table 15

Groups Statistics based on Teamwork

Group Statistics N M SD Std. Error Mean

Both Online &

Traditional

188 12.24 3.380 .247

Online Only

7 9.86 6.012 2.272

Neither Online or

Traditional

21 10.90 4.134 .902

Traditional Only

131 12.34 2.945 .257

Total

347 12.15 3.356 .180

A one-way ANOVA was used to determine that no significant differences exist between

the EI abilities of students on the basis of teamwork opportunities within the online and

traditional environment, F( 3, 343) = 2.255, p = .082. The ANOVA table for emotional

intelligence scores by department is found in Table 16. While the study did not demonstrate a

statistically significant difference of EI scores on the basis of teamwork at α = .05, the findings

were significant at α =.1. The means suggest that students incorporating teamwork in the

traditional only format scored highest on the stem test followed closely by students experiencing

collaborative learning activities in both the traditional and online environment. One odd finding

was that students who had not experienced team-based activities scored higher than students in

the online only environment.

Table 16

ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students based on Teamwork

SS Df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 75.388 3 25.129 2.255 .082

Within Groups 3822.117 343 11.143

Total 3897.504 346

Research Question 7

Is there a significant difference in the abilities of students among the four departments

within the College of Business? The results were calculated using five basic assumptions: a)

data were metric; b) samples were independent; c) random selection; d) Levine’s test .256 > .01,

verifying homogeneity of variance; and e) Shiapiro-Wilk .151 > .01, .319 > .01, .593 > .01, .01

= .01, .000 < .01, which did not depart significantly from the normal on the basis of the central

limit theorem. “When a sample size is greater than 30, the approximation of the sampling

distribution to a normal distribution is usually quite close even if the population is not normally

distributed” (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003, p. 164). Based on this information, the data did not

depart significantly from normal. The means and standard deviations by department are

summarized in the group statistics found in Table 17.

Table 17

Group Statistics by Department

Group Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Accounting &

Business Law

63 12.22 3.129 .394

Computer Science &

Information Systems

46 11.54 3.959 .584

Economics & Finance

30 12.07 2.852 .521

Management &

Marketing

119 11.91 3.481 .319

Other

89 12.75 3.356 .180

Total 347 12.15 3.356 .180

A one-way ANOVA was used to determine that no significant differences exist between the

abilities of students among the four departments within the College of Business: a) Accounting

and Business Law, b) Computer Science and Information Systems, c) Economics and Finance,

and 4) Management & Marketing. The results were F( 4, 346) = 1.264, p = .284. The ANOVA

table for emotional intelligence scores by department is found in Table 18.

Table 18

ANOVA Table for the EI Scores of Students by Department

SS Df MS F Sig.

Between Groups 56.791 4 14.198 1.264 .284

Within Groups 3840.714 342 11.230

Total 3897.504 346

CHAPTER V:

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the interpersonal abilities of online students to

traditional students by evaluating their EI through the Situational Test of Emotional Management

(STEM). The study sought to determine if there was a relationship between the number of online

courses completed and EI abilities of students. Additionally, the study examined demographic

data such as age, gender and classification for any relationships associated with EI abilities of

students. Finally, the study evaluated whether a relationship exists between teamwork

components of courses and students’ EI abilities.

Discussion of Findings

Descriptive Statistics

From the 347 completed responses, 43.5% were male (n = 151) while the remaining

56.5% (n = 196) were female participates. These results correspond directly to the university’s

population that reported that approximately 57% of the students were female with a male

population of 43%. Regarding age, 82.1% (n = 285) of the participants fell in the traditional

college age range of 19-24, while 17.9% (n = 62) indicated an age range of the non-traditional

student who is 25 or older. This finding also reflected the total student population as the average

enrollee’s age is 22.6.

Self-reported survey data also showed that approximately 14% (n = 49) of the

respondents characterize themselves as online students while 86% (n = 298) regard themselves

as traditional students. Forty-nine percent of the undergraduate business students were taking at

least one course online during the study. Another 7% of the undergraduate business students

were completing all courses online during the same period. The 14% of self-identified online

students is double the actual online student percentage of 7% as reported by the university as

well as the CoB. Over half of the students surveyed self-reported that they completed between

one and four online courses. Campus-wide, 30% of the undergraduate student population was

enrolled in at least one course online, with an additional 7% of the undergraduate student

population completing all courses online during the Fall 2013 term. However, information

available from the institution results suggest the campus wide numbers closely match national

percentages as reported by the Sloan Consortium Reports created by Allen and Seaman (2011) in

online learning.

Research Question 1

This study implied no significant difference exists in the emotional intelligence of online

and traditional students. This finding might be based on the small number of faculty within the

college studied (n = 39). Within this regional institution, it was unlikely to have different

professors teach the online and FtF classes. Since courses offered in both the online and

traditional formats were taught by only one professor, the concern or limitation of instructional

differences among professors within one subject was eliminated.

Another consideration associated with this result, is the adoption of a standardized

technology enhanced course structure through the university’s Learning Management System

(LMS) to assist in the navigation and orientation process for both traditional and online students.

This standardization was likely to reduce student confusion and format differences associated

with online courses as both the traditional and online students are presented with the same

content, assignments, assessments and course infrastructure. This process allows both faculty

and students to focus on the process of teaching and learning the specified subject matter.

The result of this research question, coincide with the implications found in other

scholarly works. As previously reported, over two-thirds of post-secondary faculty rates the

online educational environment to be either the same or superior to the traditional face-to-face

setting. Many of the academic leaders perceive online education to be at least as good as face-to-

face instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2011).

Research Question 2

Is there a significant difference in the emotional intelligence of students based on the

number of online courses completed? Yes. The analysis revealed significant differences in the EI

scores among three groups: a) students completing zero courses online; b) students completing 1-

4 courses online; and c) students completing five or more courses online. The group taking no

online classes had a significantly lower EI score when compared to students taking 1 - 4 classes.

Additionally, a significantly lower EI score was found among the students completing zero

classes when compared to those completing five or more online courses.

While evidence that people can improve on emotional intelligence competencies comes

from a wide range of sources, one of the most recognized examples of the relationship between

age and experience as interpersonal skills can be developed and improved upon through time and

training (Boyaatzi, Cowan, & Kolb, 2005; Ferris, Whitt, & Hochwarter, 2001; Geher, 2004;

Loader, 2007). Improving interpersonal skills helps individuals enrich relationships, cope better

at work and in social situations, and especially when dealing with difficult or challenging

individuals.

One justification for the significant difference in EI scores among students completing no

online courses when compared to those taking 1 - 4 or 5 or more online courses might be that

online education provides students with additional opportunities not present in the traditional

environment. Online courses may offer more chances for the proper development of

interpersonal relationships and social skills utilizing developments of the Internet and Web 2.0

technologies to enhance their understanding of citizenship and engagement (Loader, 2007).

Additional considerations for the significantly higher EI scores on the basis of completing

online classes might be that students within the traditional classroom may not be offered frequent

opportunities to participate in direct involvement with others. Professors within the traditional

environment often serve as the “Sage on Stage.” These instructors often rely heavily on a

teacher centered, lecture-based format, thereby potentially eliminating the opportunity to practice

interpersonal skills among students.

Another explanation might be related to student engagement opportunities. Students

within the online environment often interact with one another and the professor through

asynchronous discussion boards in which interpersonal skills are stimulated by dialog, regarding

others' opinions and preferences. Contrary to the information found in scholarly works, one

might consider the use of computers in solitude allows students have the opportunity to provide

thought-based, provocative responses which might serve to not only enhance interpersonal skills

practice, but also boost the development and maintenance of social relationships as students are

offered time for revisions and opportunities to consider other’s feelings before responding to the

topic at hand (Turkle, 2011). In other words, students have time and opportunity for revision

before communicating, sharing and using information to solve complex problems; and adapting

and innovating in response to new demands and constantly changing circumstances with the

feelings of others in mind; unlike the experiences found in a traditional course which require

students to move through the critical thinking process, and develop responses immediately.

Research Question 3

The results of this investigation show that no significant difference exists in the

emotional intelligence of students on the basis of age. Intuitively, one might assume that

emotional intelligence increases with age. From the literature, EI is improved upon as one learns

to be more aware of self – through evaluation and regulation of moods and behaviors - thus, also

able to handle distressing emotions and situations. According to Mayer et al. (2000), matured

and experienced individuals have the aptitude to sense other’s feelings about their work

environments and therefore exhibit higher levels of EI. Cooper (1997) noted that individuals with

high EI are proactive; begin with the end in mind; think win/win; and seek first to understand

then to be understood. However, no significant differences in the emotional intelligence scores of

students on the basis of age were found in this particular study.

The participant population for this study was centered on undergraduate students. From

reports published by the study site, the average age of new freshmen was 18.3. Upon combining

the age of all new freshmen with the age of returning freshmen, the average age of the freshmen

class increased by 6 months to 19.1 years. The average undergraduates’ age was 22.6. This result

implied the overall student population within the undergraduate community, at the study site, fell

into the traditional age bracket of 19-24 years of age, which could infer why no significant

difference was found in EI scores on the basis of age.

Future studies might incorporate a further breakdown of the age demographic from

traditional and non-traditional age ranges to specific ages instead of ranges. Incorporating this

specific change might change the significance factor associated with age in the study, as subtle

changes could have occurred at varying intervals within the age ranges associated with a

student’s freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years.

Research Question 4

This study has found that generally there is a significant difference in the emotional

intelligence of students on the basis of gender. Females notably outscored males on the STEM

survey. This finding is not surprising based on scholarly literature. Petrides and Furnman

(2000) suggested that gender differences exist. One explanation for this finding is tied to

socialization. Families, schools, peers and media, as part of the socialization process, encourage

girls to be cooperative, expressive and attuned to their interpersonal world. Boys, however, are

lead to be openly competitive and independent (Petrides & Furnman, 2006).

According to North Carolina State University’s Student Health Center (2012), “People

learn interpersonal skills by interacting with family members, going to school, and socializing

with their peers. Healthy interpersonal skills reduce stress, resolve conflict, improve

communication, enhance intimacy, increase understanding, and promote joy” (¶ 1). It is through

this socialization process that women might learn to value nurturing and interconnectivity

(Gunkel, Lusk, Wolff, & Li, 2007). Previous studies have also found that women are slightly

superior to men in perceiving emotions, demonstrating greater abilities in social and emotional

intelligence, greater doubt about feelings and decisions, and less emphasis on the intellect

(Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2002; Mayer & Geher, 1996: Wong & Law, 2002). Women tend to

have stronger aptitudes for areas incorporating empathy and social skills, while mens’ scores

demonstrate a proficiency in self-regulation (Gunkel et-al, 2007; Petrides & Furnman, 2006).

Studies by Mayer et al. (1998) as well as Mandell and Peherwani (2003) have found that women

are more likely to score higher on emotional intelligence scales than men, in both professional

and personal environment.

Research Question 5

Is there a significant difference between the emotional intelligence of students based on

student classifications? No. For the purpose of this study, classifications refer to undergraduate

freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. To move from one classification to another, students

must successfully complete a specified set of course hours. Freshmen students are those who

have completed between zero and 31 hours of coursework. Students completing 32 - 63 hours of

course work are identified as sophomores. Students who have finalized between 64 and 95 hours

are juniors, while seniors have successfully fulfilled 96 or more hours of college credit. No

significant difference between EI abilities of students based on student classifications was found

within this study, as scores were consistent among the various groups of students.

One potential explanation for this finding is that freshmen and sophomore students are

typically underrepresented populations with the COB due to admissions requirements of the

business school. Students pursuing a degree in business must apply for admission to the college

major program after completing 45 semester hours of required courses. Students who are not

admitted into the COB are not allowed to enroll in the majority of business courses offered. This

small sample size of freshmen (n = 12) and sophomores (n = 53) could easily explain the result.

Another potential consideration is that classification associated with EI abilities might

only be valuable on a broader scope by looking for comparative analysis of undergraduate and

graduate students. However, a composite of age and experience might account for potential

differences better than classification alone.

Research Question 6

No significant differences were found in the EI abilities of students who participate in

course teamwork activities and those who do not. A potential explanation for this finding is that

the sample size was too small (n = 347). From the data collected, there were seven students who

had participated in teamwork within the online only environment and twenty-one students had

never experienced any form of group work. While 131 students had participated in team

exercises in the traditional environment only, there were 188 students who had the benefit of

team activities in both formats. An individual’s ability to be a team player, to collaborate with

individuals from different cultures and backgrounds, to interact with diverse personalities, and to

work on projects with strict deadlines is required in the marketplace. EI has been found to gauge

the skills necessary to safeguard interpersonal relationships as they are related to social

adaptation within the environment (Bar-On, 2005). Furthermore, EI predicts positive relations

with others and is negatively associated with interpersonal problems (Ghiabi & Ali Besharat,