Developing emotional intelligence in student teachers in universities

The study addresses the importance of emotional intelligence (EI) in education and teacher preparation, noting that EI includes abilities to perceive, use, understand, and manage emotions. Prior work suggests EI influences classroom discipline, student engagement, and academic success, and is particularly critical for professionals in social and educational fields. The problem statement emphasizes the need to evaluate the role of teachers’ EI in higher education and to assess the effectiveness of EI training among social pedagogue (student teacher) populations. The study aims to measure EI among social pedagogue students, enhance their EI through a structured training program, and reassess EI after training to determine changes.

The literature links teachers’ emotional competence with effective classroom organization and discipline management. Studies report that emotionally intelligent teachers better perceive student emotions, adapt behavior, and manage classroom discipline (Valente et al., 2019). EI is associated with teacher efficacy, a core characteristic for engaging students (Valente et al., 2020), predicts job performance (Latif et al., 2017), and protects against emotional burnout (Mérida-López & Extremera, 2017; Larina, 2017). Broader research indicates emotional responses precede cognitive ones, making EI vital for decision-making and interpersonal relationships (Sangeetha, 2017; Edannur, 2010). Systematic reviews highlight the potential for improving EI and its relevance for teacher training (Kotsou et al., 2019; Palomera et al., 2008; Petrides et al., 2016).

Design: Pre–post intervention study assessing EI before and after an Emotional Intelligence Training Program. Sample: Random sample of 86 social pedagogue students: 40 from L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (Nur-Sultan) and 46 from K. Zhubanov Aktobe Regional University (Aktobe). Measures: Hall Emotional Intelligence Test (EQ test) (Ilyin, 2001) with 30 statements rated on a 6-point scale: −3 (completely disagree) to +3 (completely agree). Total score is the sum of items. The test assesses five scales (6 items each): Emotional Awareness (items 1,2,4,17,19,25), Managing Your Emotions (3,7,8,10,18,30), Self-motivation (5,6,13,14,16,22), Empathy (9,11,20,21,23,28), Managing the Emotions of Other People (12,15,24,26,27,29). Higher positive scores indicate higher ability. Overall EI levels: high >70, average 40–69, low <39 (for total score). Intervention: Emotional Intelligence Training Program grounded in Mayer & Salovey’s model with four thematic blocks: (I) Perceiving emotions—identifying and giving feedback on one’s emotions and estimating others’ emotions; (II) Facilitating thinking with emotions—linking emotions to physical sensations and recognizing emotional cues; (III) Understanding emotions—didactic content on basic emotions (fear, joy, sadness, disgust, anger, surprise) with intensity schemas and tables of causes, manifestations, and thoughts; personal application and introduction of the ‘emotional filter’ concept with analysis and modeling of conflict situations; (IV) Managing emotions—techniques to evoke specific emotions in oneself via guided recall and sensory detail, and strategies to influence interlocutors’ emotional states to reach favorable interaction outcomes. Procedure: Baseline EQ test administered; all participants completed the training; post-training EQ test administered; two months later, a brief follow-up interview (seven questions) assessed perceived changes in educational process quality, classroom discipline, communication, lesson interest, self- and student-understanding of emotions, and conflict involvement. Ethics: Participants provided informed consent; anonymity ensured via IDs; the study adhered to ethical standards approved by relevant university Ethics Committees. Limitations declared in-methods: Focus on one ethnicity; age and prior EI enhancement experience not considered; sample limited to two large Kazakhstani cities.

- Sample: N=86 social pedagogue students. - Baseline (pre-training): Most students showed average EI (scale scores between −6 and +4). Few had very low (−10) or very high (+13) subscale scores. Reported aggregate scores by dimension: Emotional Awareness = 44; Managing Your Emotions = 112; Self-motivation = 108; Empathy = 15; Managing Others’ Emotions = 43. Students were relatively more inclined toward empathy but had difficulty identifying and noticing emotions. - Post-training: Aggregate scores increased markedly: Emotional Awareness = 351; Managing Your Emotions = 253; Self-motivation = 348; Empathy = 334; Managing Others’ Emotions = 304. - Improvement percentages (positive EQ scores before vs. after): Emotional Awareness +36%; Managing Your Emotions +32%; Self-motivation +29%; Empathy +22%; Managing Others’ Emotions +22%. The pre–post differences were described as significant. - Follow-up interview (2 months): Participants reported improved educational process quality, better classroom discipline, enhanced communication with students and colleagues, greater understanding of their own emotions and of students’ emotions, and increased lesson interest.

The EI training led to improvements across all five EI dimensions for all participants, aligning with literature that underscores EI’s role in effective teaching, classroom management, and well-being. The study acknowledges potential moderating factors such as sex and age, with prior research indicating females may score higher on EI measures. Self-reports from the follow-up interview suggest that enhanced EI may translate to better instructional quality, discipline, and interpersonal communication within educational settings. These findings support integrating EI development into teacher education and suggest that EI, self-efficacy, and well-being jointly shape responses to classroom stress. Future work should refine and tailor EI training for education professionals and explore differential effects across demographics.

Exposing social pedagogue students to a structured EI training program produced marked gains across EI dimensions, with positive score percentages increasing by 22–32% depending on competence. Participants perceived improvements in the educational process, classroom discipline, and understanding of emotions. The findings have implications for labor psychology and pedagogy, and the reported methodology can inform future research on EI in teacher education and the design of training programs aimed at enhancing emotional understanding and regulation in educators.

The study focuses on one ethnicity, does not account for age or participants’ prior EI-enhancement experiences, and uses a sample restricted to two large cities in Kazakhstan, limiting generalizability to other regions and contexts.