The Effects of Short-Term Emotional Intelligence Training on Preschool Teachers in Poland

Abstract

The development of emotional intelligence (EI) in preschool teachers is important because of the influence on classroom environment, student engagement and child development. This cluster sample experimental study included teachers (all female) in public and private nursey and preschools in Warsaw, Poland. The treatment group (N = 60) interventions included three monthly workshop training in EI that was supported by daily exercises for four weeks following the training in contrast to the control group (N = 44) that did not receive any intervention. Pretest-posttest comparisons as measured by the Polish Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) indicated treatment group increases in three of the four EI abilities (facilitation, knowledge and regulation) as well as the MSCEIT Strategic area. In posttest comparisons the treatment group was significantly higher than controls on the facilitation and regulation abilities and the strategic area. Results suggest that targeted interventions for teachers can improve EI abilities with short term training and hold promise for improved teacher development.

Full text

Psychological Topics, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
Original Scientific Paper
doi:https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.1.5
UDC: 159.942.072(438)
373.2-057.86(438)
 John Pellitteri, Queens College-City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena Blvd
Flushing, New York 11367, USA. E-mail: John.Pellitteri@qc.cuny.edu
85
The Effects of Short-Term Emotional Intelligence
Training on Preschool Teachers in Poland
Marzena Martyniak
Institute for Emotional Development, Warsaw, Poland
John Pellitteri
Queens College, City University of New York, New York, USA
Abstract
The development of emotional intelligence (EI) in preschool teachers is important because of the
influence on classroom environment, student engagement and child development. This cluster
sample experimental study included teachers (all female) in public and private nursey and
preschools in Warsaw, Poland. The treatment group (N = 60) interventions included three monthly
workshop training in EI that was supported by daily exercises for four weeks following the training
in contrast to the control group (N = 44) that did not receive any intervention. Pretest-posttest
comparisons as measured by the Polish Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT) indicated treatment group increases in three of the four EI abilities (facilitation,
knowledge and regulation) as well as the MSCEIT Strategic area. In posttest comparisons the
treatment group was significantly higher than controls on the facilitation and regulation abilities and
the strategic area. Results suggest that targeted interventions for teachers can improve EI abilities
with short term training and hold promise for improved teacher development.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, preschool teachers, MSCEIT, intervention
Introduction
The importance of emotional intelligence (EI) and social-emotional learning
(SEL) in education and child development has been well established (Brackett &
Katulak, 2006; Frey, Bobbitt Nolen, van Schoiack Edstrom, & Hirschstein, 2005;
Salovey & Sluyter, 1997). Social-emotional capacities are relevant for mental health
and as protective factors in coping and resilience for children (Cohen & Kauffman,
2005; Goldstein & Brooks, 2013) particularly for young (preschool age) children
(Lynch, Geller, & Schmidt, 2004). EI and SEL curricula have also been found to

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
86
impact academic learning. In a meta-analytic study involving 213 school-based SEL
programs, Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger (2011) found that
SEL programs led to an 11% increase in academic performance.
Despite these findings, there are varying degrees to which EI has been embraced
in educational curricula at different grade levels. The extension of EI curricula from
elementary grades to younger children in pre-school and nursery schools is
developing (Gershon & Pellitteri, 2018; Rivers, Tominey, O’ Bryon, & Brackett,
2013; Ulutas & Omeroglu, 2007) but continued research at the preschool grade level
is necessary. In addition, there are differences between various countries in the
degree to which EI is recognized and embedded in education as well as the larger
society.
An important factor in the delivery of EI and related interventions in schools is
the role of the teacher. Not only are teachers usually responsible for delivering EI
curriculum to students but they also model EI behaviours and create classroom
environments that are conducive to students’ academic learning and emotional
development. A notable finding from the Durlak et al. (2011) meta-analysis found
that caring support from teachers in their relationships with students was significant.
McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, and McClowry (2015) identified emotional
support and classroom organization as factors contributing to academic achievement.
Bracket and colleagues (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011;
Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012) examined EI curricula in schools
and the reciprocal relationships between classroom emotional climate with student
conduct and academic grades. They found that these relationships were mediated by
teacher affiliation and student engagement respectively. Hagelskamp, Brackett,
Rivers, and Salovey (2013) found that treatment group classes using the RULER
curriculum over a 2-year period improved classroom emotional support as well as
organizational and instructional support over control conditions. These findings
illustrate the important role of teachers and the classroom environment in the creation
and maintenance of the emotional climate. As the key facilitators in the classroom,
teachers’ impact on the environment comes through emotion-based interactions.
This, in turn, highlights the importance of developing EI in teachers.
EI interventions directed toward students and classroom improvement not only
include the teacher as a facilitator but can also facilitate teachers’ EI development.
Castillo, Fernández-Berrocal, and Brackett (2013) in a study in Spain examined
variables such as burnout for teachers in a treatment condition using the RULER
curriculum versus a control (E-Learning) condition. They found significant gains on
several variables for teachers in the treatment group, suggesting that EI curricula
have implications for improving the quality of teaching practices and professional
development. The importance of EI training for teachers has been established (Dolev
& Leshem, 2016; Palomera, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2008).
The current study builds upon these findings of teacher training and examines
the effectiveness of a 3-month EI intervention for preschool teachers. The

Martyniak, M., Pellitteri, J.:
Emotional Intelligence in Preschool Teachers
87
intervention was based on the abilities model of EI (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The
study is part of a larger project of developing EI in the educational system in Poland.
The purpose is to contribute to the literature on EI in Polish education and extend EI
applications to the preschool level.
Method
Participants
Participants were nursery and preschool teachers from 18 schools in Warsaw.
All participants were female with age ranges between 25 and 55 (Mage = 32.5). The
total participants after attrition were 104 (60 in treatment group and 44 in control
conditions). The initial number of participants in the groups was larger (66 treatment
group and 61 control group), however, several participants did not complete the
posttest because they were no longer employed at the schools or chose to withdraw
from the study. Other participants did complete both pre and posttest measures,
however, their responses were incomplete so their MSCEIT results could not be
adequately scored. Only participants with completed measures at both times of
assessment were retained in the study. One possible difference for the lower attrition
rate in the treatment group (9%) versus the control group (27%) is that the former
was engaged through the treatment intervention and was presumably more invested
in the study, whereas the latter did not have an on-going contact with the researcher
over the three months.
Instruments
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is an ability-
based performance measure that yields four hierarchical levels of scores (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). At the first and lowest level of the test structure are eight
separate tasks that require the participant to perform an EI ability such as identify
faces in pictures or answer questions about emotion concepts or emotional skills. The
next level includes the four ability scores (branches) that are each comprised of two
task scores. The four abilities are (1) perception, which requires the accurate
identification of emotions in faces and visual scenes, (2) facilitation, which includes
sensory access to feelings and emotional planning in social situations, (3) knowledge,
which comprises a conceptual understanding of complex emotions and transitions,
and (4) regulation, which includes the abilities to manage emotional states in oneself
and in others. The third level of the MSCEIT structure is the area scores. The first
two abilities (perception and facilitation) form the Experiential Area that refers most
predominantly to processing the intake of emotional information. The third and
fourth abilities (knowledge and regulation) comprise the Strategic Area score which
represents adaptive actions based on emotions. The total score at the fourth and
highest level is derived from the two area scores.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
88
The scoring method for the study was consensus scoring based on the means of
the test’s norm groups. Reliability and validity for the MSCEIT were established
through factorial, predictive and discriminant comparisons in numerous studies as
described by Mayer et al. (2002).
Demographic Questionnaire obtained basic information on participants.
Additional measures were administered as part of a larger study but only the
preliminary findings on the main effect are available and are analysed and reported
here.
Procedure
Participants were assigned to treatment or control conditions by a cluster
sampling of schools. Teachers in the treatment conditions attended the workshops in
a central location. The treatment group intervention included three monthly full-day
EI training workshops with short daily follow-up exercises (five times per week) that
were administered through e-mails for four weeks following the training. Control
group participants did not receive any interventions.
Results
Analyses included independent sample t-tests for pretests and posttests analyses
and paired sample t-tests for pre-post analyses of treatment and control groups.
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the dependent variable for the
treatment and control groups. The group comparisons were conducted at the level of
MSCEIT abilities, areas and total scores. The independent t-test comparisons for the
pretests as reported in Table 2 indicate that there were no significant differences
between treatment and control groups on any of the EI abilities measure (MSCEIT)
variables. This suggests that there were equivalent levels of EI abilities before
treatment intervention.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
N
M
SD
V
Treatment Group
Perception Ability
59
93.07
15.51
240.71
Facilitation Ability
59
92.45
11.91
141.92
Knowledge Ability
60
87.27
8.64
74.82
Management Ability
59
85.42
8.73
76.21
Experiential Area
58
91.30
13.25
175.65
Strategic Area
59
85.77
6.98
48.85
MSCEIT Total
57
86.42
9.46
89.49

Martyniak, M., Pellitteri, J.:
Emotional Intelligence in Preschool Teachers
89
N
M
SD
V
Control Group
Perception Ability
43
96.33
15.67
245.68
Facilitation Ability
43
89.91
12.87
165.88
Knowledge Ability
44
88.89
11.94
142.63
Management Ability
42
83.25
11.64
135.54
Experiential Area
43
92.45
14.47
209.45
Strategic Area
42
84.84
11.86
140.81
MSCEIT Total
41
85.41
11.56
133.75
Table 2
Independent Samples T-Test for Treatment and Control Group MSCEIT Pretests
t-test
df
p
Mean Difference
S.E. Difference
Perception Ability
-1.04
100
.299
-3.26
3.12
Facilitation Ability
1.02
100
.306
2.54
2.47
Knowledge Ability
-0.76
74.12
.446
-1.62
2.11
Regulation Ability
1.02
72.21
.312
2.16
2.12
Experiential Area
-0.41
99
.69
-1.14
2.77
Strategic Area
0.45
61.11
.64
0.93
2.04
MSCEIT Total
0.47
96
.63
1.01
2.12
The control group pretest - posttest paired sample t-test comparisons (See Table
3) indicate that no significant within-group difference occurred during the course of
the study.
Table 3
Paired Samples T-Test for Control Group MSCEIT Pretest - Posttests
M
SD
S.E.
t-test
df
p
Pair 1
Perception O1-O2
.79
18.15
2.76
0.28
42
.777
Pair 2
Facilitation O1-O2
-.47
11.82
1.80
-0.26
42
.794
Pair 3
Knowledge O1-O2
.36
7.10
1.07
0.34
43
.734
Pair 4
Regulation O1-O2
-.41
4.41
0.68
-0.60
41
.550
Pair 5
Experiential O1-O2
.68
16.32
2.48
0.27
42
.783
Pair 6
Strategic O1-O2
.11
5.97
0.92
0.12
41
.901
Pair 7
MSCEIT Total O1-O2
.18
9.39
1.46
0.12
40
.901
Note. O1 = Observation 1 (pretest); O2 = Observation 2 (posttest); S.E. = standard error mean.
Table 4 illustrates the treatment group pretest - posttest comparisons. The
treatment intervention is associated with significant increases in three of the four
MSCEIT branches (facilitation, knowledge, regulation) as well as one area score
(Strategic).

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
90
Table 4
Paired Sample T-Tests for Treatment Group MSCEIT Pretest - Posttest
M
SD
S.E.
t-test
df
p
Pair 1
Perception O1-O2
2.89
17.85
2.34
1.23
57
.222
Pair 2
Facilitation O1-O2
-4.54
14.57
1.91
-2.37
57
.021*
Pair 3
Knowledge O1-O2
-4.05
10.15
1.31
-3.08
59
.003**
Pair 4
Regulation O1-O2
-3.88
10.86
1.42
-2.72
57
.009**
Pair 5
Experiential O1-O2
-.61
14.74
1.97
-.31
55
.757
Pair 6
Strategic O1-O2
-4.00
8.28
1.08
-3.68
57
.001**
Pair 7
MSCEIT Total O1-O2
-2.47
9.90
1.34
-1.83
53
.072
Note. O1 = Observation 1 (pretest); O2 = Observation 2 (posttest); S.E. = standard error mean; *p < .05;
**p < .01.
Three of the four significant variables that increased in the treatment
intervention were significant compared to the control group. Two abilities
(facilitation and regulation), as well as one areas score (Strategic), were significantly
higher, as reported in Table 5.
Table 5
Independent Samples T-Tests for Treatment and Control Group MSCEIT Posttests
t-test
df
p
Mean Difference
S.E. Difference
Perception Ability
-1.56
101
.121
-4.25
2.72
Facilitation Ability
2.50
100
.014*
6.61
2.64
Knowledge Ability
1.25
102
.211
2.79
2.22
Regulation Ability
2.35
100
.020*
5.33
2.26
Experiential Area
0.15
99
.874
0.36
2.32
Strategic Area
2.54
100
.012*
5.08
1.99
MSCEIT Total
1.87
97
.065
3.99
2.13
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.
Discussion
The results indicate that the 3-month EI training intervention for teachers was
effective at increasing three of the four MSCEIT ability areas (facilitation,
knowledge and regulation). The facilitation ability involves emotional planning (i.e.
anticipating how someone might feel or matching what emotion would be most
productive in a given situation) which is a relevant capacity for teacher classroom
interventions. The emotional knowledge ability involves the conceptual
understanding of emotions (such as the causes of feelings) which can be more readily
taught in workshop settings. While the knowledge ability increased in the treatment
group posttest measure it was not significantly higher than the control group posttest

Martyniak, M., Pellitteri, J.:
Emotional Intelligence in Preschool Teachers
91
suggesting that without intervention, some degree of emotion knowledge increased.
Lastly, the regulation ability may be most relevant to classroom teaching in the form
of managing students’ emotions as well as teachers managing their own emotions
during the day.
At the level of MSCEIT area scores, the Strategic Area significantly increased
as a result of the intervention. This variable is derived from the knowledge and
regulation abilities and therefore reflects the increases in both of those components.
The strategic area overall may also reflect the extent of the teachers’ interests in
practical applications of classroom management. The relevance of such strategic area
abilities for classroom management may have led teachers to be more focused on
these abilities.
The perception ability did not increase in the treatment condition even though
the workshops and follow up exercises were aimed at all four of the Mayer and
Salovey (1997) abilities. One reason could be that EI perception appears to be more
distinct from the other MSCEIT abilities as suggested in factor analytic examinations
(Pellitteri & Lei, 2016). EI perception may be based more in temperament and rely
more strongly on neurological processing than the other abilities which tend to
involve greater cognitive processing (and thus be more sensitive to workshop
training). Another reason could be that the experiential practice of EI perception
abilities in preschool classes is minimal given the young children’s limited range of
expressed feelings and simple basic emotions (Lewis, 2016). Teachers may not have
been challenged at recognizing affective cues beyond the primary emotions that are
already within an adult repertoire.
The increase in EI abilities as a result of a short term (3-month) intervention is
promising in that educational systems could impact teacher development without
extensive resources or training. An identified need is to increase the salience of EI in
education in Poland and such a cost-effective method could be important for this
purpose. However, long term studies (e.g., Hagelskamp et al., 2013; Lynch et al.,
2004) suggest that sustained EI interventions with students will have a significant
impact and other studies (e.g., Brackett et al., 2011) identify teachers as one of several
facilitating factors. While short term interventions may be desirable for school
administrators with limited budgets and limited time for teacher development, long
term teacher development interventions must be considered because of the promise
of sustainability.
One limitation in this current study is the examination of preliminary data
without long term follow up. It is therefore not known how long these increases in
EI will last. This need will be addressed by a 2-year study that is currently in progress
as part of the larger project by the Institute for Emotional Development in Poland.
Another limitation of the current study is the potential carry-over effect on the
posttest measurement after only a few months. There is little evidence from the
literature to examine the sensitivity of this effect with the MSCEIT, however, the
non-significant changes in the control group posttest suggest that this is not a

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
92
confounding factor. This measurement issue will also be addressed in the 2-year
study that conducts posttest assessment on a yearly basis. Lastly, the on-going 2-year
studies will include multiple assessments of personality and class environment that
will balance the limitations of this current study that only examined the dependent
variable.
One direction for future research will be to examine the effects of teacher EI on
students. While the short-term intervention was effective in increasing EI abilities, it
is not yet known how teachers’ abilities translate to student gains in Poland. Such
influences will need to be examined in the context of classroom- and school-wide EI
interventions that directly teach EI skills to students and that consider factors in the
classroom environment. The on-going 2-year study aims to explore this effect.
Another area for future research is in the delivery of EI teacher training. The
intervention had two major components, the three full-day workshops and the daily
follow up. The former is a common format for most teacher training programs.
However, it is believed that many of the gains in teacher EI abilities may have been
sustained by the continued daily reminders and exercises that the teachers did over
the four weeks following the training. Future research could involve a component
analysis that compares this study’s intervention with a workshop only group to
ascertain the impact of the daily exercises. Teacher and student development can be
parallel in that both involve learning processes, so sustained daily interventions will
likely improve teachers’ EI the way it impacts students’ emotional learning.
References
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: A skill-
based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Improving
emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 1-27). New York: Psychology Press.
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., & Salovey, P. (2011).
Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. Journal of
Classroom Interaction, 46(1), 27-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23870549
Castillo, R., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2013). Enhancing teacher
effectiveness in Spain: A pilot study of the RULER approach to social and emotional
learning. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 263-272. doi:10.11114/
jets.v1i2.203
Cohen, E., & Kaufmann, R. (Eds). (2005). Early childhood mental health consultation.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University, the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations
for Early Learning.
Dolev, N., & Leshem, S. (2016). Teachers’ emotional intelligence: The impact of training.
International Journal of Emotional Education, 8(1), 75-94.

Martyniak, M., Pellitteri, J.:
Emotional Intelligence in Preschool Teachers
93
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).
The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
Frey, K. S., Bobbitt Nolen, S., van Schoiack Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects
of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals,
attributions and behavior. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 171-200.
Gershon, P., & Pellitteri, J. S. (2018) Promoting emotional intelligence in preschool
education: A review of programs. International Journal of Emotional Education, 10(2),
26-41.
Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. B. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of resilience in children (2nd ed).
New York: Springer.
Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013). Improving classroom
quality with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal
outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 530-543. doi:10.1007/
s10464-013-9570-On-line
Lewis, M. (2016). The emergence of human emotions. In L. Feldman Barrett, M. Lewis, & J.
M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions, 4th ed. (pp. 272-292). New York:
Guilford.
Lynch, K. B., Geller, R. S., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-year evaluation of the
effectiveness of a resilience-based prevention program for young children. The Journal
of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 335-353.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence (pp. 3-31). New
York, N.Y.: Harper Collins.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McCormick, M. P., Cappella, E., O’Connor, E. E., & McClowry, S. G. (2015). Social-
emotional learning and academic achievement: Using causal methods to explore
classroom-level mechanisms. AERA Open, 1(3), 1-26. doi:10.1177/
2332858415603959
Palomera, R., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence as a
basic competency in pre-service teacher training: Some evidence. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 6(2), 437-454.
Pellitteri, J. S., & Lei, N. (2016). Which emotional intelligence: A comparison of measures
and implications for counseling psychology. Psychology Research, 6(2), 57-68.
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom
emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. doi:10.1037/a0027268

PSYCHOLOGICAL TOPICS, 29 (2020), 1, 85-94
94
Rivers, S. E., Tominey, S., O’ Bryon, E., & Brackett, M. (2013). Developing emotional skills
in early childhood settings using preschool RULER. Psychological Education Review,
37, 20-25.
Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence. New
York: Harper Collins.
Ulutas, I., & Omeroglu, E. (2007). The effects of an emotional intelligence education program
on the emotional intelligence of children. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(10),
1365-1372.
Received: December 1, 2019