Different Profiles of Emotional Intelligence in primary school teachers: relationship with students and children’s behaviour

Introduction This study investigates how different profile of teachers in their perceptions of Emotional Intelligence (EI) relate to student-teacher relationships (STR) and behavioral characteristics of their pupils. Method Participants were 22 teachers (21 women) of 316 primary school children (age M=8.8; SD=.73; 169 boys) and their parents. Teachers filled the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS; Schutte, et al. 1998; Grazzani et al., 2009), the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta 1999; Molinari & Melotti 2010), and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Scale to evaluate Prosocial Behaviour (SDQ, Goodman, 1997); parents filled all the five SDQ scales to assess children’s emotional and behavioral characteristics; Children filled the STRS scale for children. The EI scores were used to perform a Cluster analyses using Ward method and 3 profiles of teachers emerged. Profiles were used in different ANOVAs with STRS and SDQ scores and dependent variables. Results Three teachers profiles emerged from cluster analyses: (1)High total EI (HEI), higher than others in all the scales; (2) High emotion Regulation (HER), higher in emotion regulation than other scales; (3) high emotion regulation only with others (HOR). As regard age, HEI was more frequent for teachers aged 40-50 than lower and older ages. Anovas showed that HOR teachers perceived STR at the same time more conflictual and closer with their students; HEI teachers have students with more behavioural problems (externalization, internalization) and less prosocial behavior as evaluated from their parents (they do not differentiate in prosocial behavior as perceived by teachers); finally children perceive a closer relationship with HOR teachers (all the anovas are significant with p<.001). Discussion In conclusion, our results seem to show that teachers that are more sensitive in the STR are the ones more focused on other feelings than theirs. While the teachers that evaluate themselves higher in EI have classes with more problematic students. This study has the important limit to have a small sample of teachers, but the strength is the multi-informant approach. Probably teachers with more differentiated scores in EIS have a better awareness of their socioemotional competences, in fact their pupils feel better with them. The collection of further data is still ongoing and will allow for a better interpretation of the results.