ANALYZING FACTORS AFFECTING SOCIALEMOTIONAL COMPETENCE AT SECONDARY LEVEL

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).36      10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).36      Published : Sep 2020
Authored by : Sumera Kulsoom , Irshad Hussain

36 Pages : 373-384

    Abstract

    The study analyzed the factors affecting social-emotional competence (SEC) at the secondary level. A stratified random sampling technique was used. 382 students were taken as a sample after using desired sample size table. Two research tools were used, the Factors affecting social, emotional competence questionnaire and the Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ). Data were analyzed by using mean, percentage and standard deviation. Results indicated that friends’ response, classroom environment and home environment affects SEC the most as compared to media interaction. It was concluded that self-consciousness, social consciousness and the factor decisiveness were possessed by the students the most. And the factor self-regulation was possessed by the students the least. The skills in which the students were weak included calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises.

    Key Words

    Social-Emotional Competence, Secondary Level

    Introduction

    Learning at the secondary school level usually is the result of students and teachers interaction and their day to day communication regarding the syllabus and scheme of studies. Students’ ability to understand the attitude of their teachers and peers and act accordingly is important for their academic achievement and SEC development (Taylor & Schellinger, 2011).

    SEC is the capability to recognize emotions and behavior patterns of the family members, peers, teachers, and other society members to understand them and act accordingly in order to achieve the desired goals of education, namely “social adjustment” (Seal, Naumann, Scott & Royce-Davis, 2011). It also deals with the recognition of one’s own behavior patterns, ideas, beliefs, values and, in other words, one’s own self and to make responsible decisions for one’s own self (DeLay. et al., 2016).

    The term social, emotional competence is derived from social competence and emotional competence. Social competence is the ability to have relations with one another to survive in society. The relations based on empathy, cooperation, respect of others helps the individual to get his desired results while living in the gathering of mixed abilities of the people, having different emotions, feelings, behavior and ideology (Larson, Whitton, Hauser, & Allen, 2007). The person who has the skill of social competence usually have a higher level of life satisfaction and a higher level of academic achievement rather than those persons who do not have the skill of social competence (Smart & Sanson,2003). Social competence is the source of removing anxiety, depression and stress due to the healthy relationship with the members of the society.  It is a skill of expressing the most suitable and acceptable verbal and non-verbal behavior in society (Oberst, Gallifa, Farriols & Villaregut, 2009). Social competence is a way to have a positive attitude in all types of relationships, i.e., kinship relationship, formalized relationship and non formalized relationship. Kinship relationship refers to genetical relations and marriage relations, formalized relationship refers to a counsellor, teacher and boss, and non formalized relationship refers to friends, family members and cousins (Murakami, Murray, Sims & Chedzey, 2009). Emotional competence is the ability to recognize, understand other’s emotions and express one’s own emotions accordingly (Ciarrochi & Scott, 2006). It is a skill based on emotional intelligence and a process of managing the life routine of a person wisely with having control over his emotions and his dealing with other people and solving his problems. Social competence and emotional competence are interrelated. Social competence provides the basis for emotional competence, and emotional competence is necessary for social competence. One who has the first competence necessarily has the second one (Abraham, 2014).

    The objective of the SEC is to produce such educated manpower that not only possesses academic achievement, but they also have a sense of civic values. They may know well how to perform their social roles, how to deal with social problems and how to handle the unethical and problematic behaviors of others (Virtual lab school, 2019). 

    Teachers are in a position to directly affect the personality of the students in order to achieve the objectives of the schools related to SEC. They have the authority to transmit not only the knowledge or information to the students, yet they have the responsibility of their character building by enabling them to identify and adopt the most suitable patterns of behaviors that are mostly accepted by the society through practising these patterns in the classroom (Jones, Barnes, Bailey & Doolittle, 2017).

    Schools are not only the institutions of providing information to the learners, but the main purpose of the schools is to enable the learners to take their own responsibility of learning, i.e., to develop the critical thinking skill, to develop the social adjustment skill and to develop problem-solving skill among them so that they might be able to cope with all perplexing situation of their life when they are outside the school or the educational institution, and they might be able to perform their social and personal duties as well (Patrick, Ryan & Kaplan, 2007). As a result of this social association and social preparation, the term SEC has evolved over the last two decades (Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015).

    In Pakistan, the teaching process and assessment system focus on lower levels of learning objectives, i.e., knowledge and comprehension. Most of the attention is given to the achievement of the cognitive domain of educational objectives at the secondary level. Whereas affective domain is concerned, it is not focused (Chandio & Iqbal, 2016; Iftikhar, Jafri & Arian, 2012; Malik & Zaheer,2012). SEC is directly related to the affective domain of educational objectives (Brett, Smith & Huitt, 2003). In the affective domain, students learn how to receive the piece of information from others, how to act or respond accordingly, how to value the piece of information get from others, how to organize and even characterize it (Kirk, 2020). Keeping in view the whole scenario, the researcher thought it appropriate to conduct the study to analyze factors affecting SEC at the secondary level. Therefore following were the research objectives 

    1. To identify the factors affecting the social-emotional competence of secondary school students.

    2. To examine the social-emotional competence of secondary school students.

    Literature Review

    SEC is an umbrella term, including in itself various skills like self-reliance, self-management, social sensitivity, task orientation, openness to experience and positive reactions to challenges (Stewart & Chisholm, 2012). There are five components of SEC, namely

    Self-consciousness 

    Self-regulation

    Social consciousness

    Relationship building

    Decisiveness (Zhou & Ee, 2012).


    Self-Awareness

    It leads towards self-control, self-management, self-regulation and self-help skills. It is a door that opens the way of self-concept and self-reliance that leads toward emotional insight. It is a process whereby one understands himself, his emotions, felling and attitude with others in the light of past experiences and the relations with others (Raver, 2004). One understands himself deeper how to communicate with others and in what tone to communicate with others and which type of relationship to be held with others, i.e., with peers, teachers, administration and classmates in the educational institution, with a colleague, boss subordinates in the professional life, with friends, parents, suppose and children in the personal life (Singh, 2014). The self-awareness provided to the child at an early stage mater a lot for him, and on the basis of this self-awareness, he develops his attitude and behavior pattern that affects his whole life. And unconsciously the person uses that pattern of behavior throughout his life without thinking about the end result or consequences of that pattern of behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1997).


    Self-Regulation

    It is an umbrella term having organizing, self controlling, self-directing, communicating and problem-solving skills in itself. Organizing is the activity of sequencing the elements of necessary work being done by a person. To set the priority list for the work and to sequence the essential steps of the work in the personal life of anyone is included in self-organization Marsh and Carven (2002). Self-controlling is the process of regulating one’s own desires, priorities and emotions that become a hurdle in the way of getting success and achievement of goals. Self-directing is the process to monitor one’ own progress, suggesting the path for one’s own self and recognizing the opportunities for one’s own self (Raver, 2004). Problem-solving skill includes identifying the problem, locating the alternate resources for the solution of the problem, selecting the best one option in the resources available, applying the chosen one solution of the problem and finally taking the follow up the mechanism of the solution of the problem to evaluate either it is a most suitable solution or the least suitable solution of the problem (Mill & Kim, 2017).


    Social Consciousness

    It is a process of perceiving and comprehending the information of others and act accordingly. It is the process of sharing ideas, feelings and information to others in the most suitable and acceptable manner in society (Denham, 2006).


    Relationship Building

    It is the ability to have positive connections with others (Frisby & Martin, 2010). To build healthy relationship students needs to have communication with others. Here it means they have the ability to understand each other, to talk with each other, genuinely listen to each other, not to criticize rudely, to stay with the topic, to admit their own mistakes and have the courage to say sorry when they are wrong and not to consume things but have a look on the reality (Beaty-O’Ferrall, Green & Hanna, 2010). 


    Decisiveness

    Reasonable decision making skill involves goals and objectives, insight of the matter and SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. Students need to develop the skill of decision making in order to have social adjustment and judgment about their career and achievement. They also need to understand the importance of their decision and the importance of the activities based on their decision. They also need to realize the impact of their decision on themselves and on other people (Joseph & Strain, 2013). 

    Research Methodology

    Research Design

    The study is descriptive by nature. It involves defining the problem, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the relationship between variables and developing generalizations.

     

    Population and Sampling

    All the students of 10th grade of Punjab, Pakistan, were the population of the study. However, the target population comprised of secondary school students from three districts of Punjab having the highest literacy rate, intermediate literacy rate and lowest literacy rate. And these are Rawalpindi, Multan and Rajanpur.

    In the study, a stratified random sampling technique is used because there were three districts having different literacy rates. Each district is considered as a stratum. Each selected school in the selected district was divided into two strata, i.e. government-funded schools and non-public schools. Every stratum was additionally isolated into two parts, i.e. boys schools and girls schools. Thus, the test was included 12 schools (4 schools from each district). To meet the required sample size, 32 students were taken from each school by utilizing a simple random sampling procedure. In this way, the aggregate no. of the students 384 was achieved for having their opinion on the questionnaire.

     

    Table 1.  Required Sample Size Table

    Categories     

    Population size

    Sample size (confidence interval 95% & margin of error 5%)

    Students               

    51096

    382

    (Raosoft, 2019).

     

    Development of Research Tool

    Two types of tools were developed.

    ·         Factors affecting social-emotional competence questionnaire

    ·         Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)

     

    Factors Affecting Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire

    A questionnaire on factors affecting SEC was developed by the researcher based on five points Likert scale after having a deep and comprehensive study of related literature. Seven factors were developed by the researcher in the questionnaire, i.e., teachers’ responses, parents’ responses, classmates’ responses, friends’ responses, classroom environment, home environment and media interaction.

     

    Social-Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)

    A questionnaire on the Possession of SEC was developed by the researcher based on five points Likert scale after having a deep and comprehensive study of related literature. Five factors were developed by the researcher in the questionnaire, i.e., self-consciousness, social consciousness, self-regulation, relationship building and decisiveness.

     

    Pilot Study

    Before administering the instrument in the actual field, a pilot study was conducted. Questionnaires were administered on the sample of 40 students in 2 schools in Multan city. The flaws were identified, and changes were made accordingly to finalize the tool.

     

    Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

    Reliability was calculated and found to be 0.85, which indicates high reliability. The tool was got validated by three experts’ constructive opinion

     

    Statistical Analysis

    Data was analyzed mean performance-wise, percentage-wise and standard deviation were calculated for the study.

    Results

    To achieve the first objective, identification of the factors affecting SEC of secondary school students, the result of the study is as follows

     

     

    Table 2.  Students’ Attitude Regarding Teachers’ Responses

    No.

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    TR1

    Positive Attitude of Teacher

    F

    %

    189

    49%

    49

    12.7%

    17

    4%

    68

    17.7%

    61

    15.8%

    3.61

    1.59

    TR2

    Negative Attitude of Teacher

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    93

    24%

    0

    0%

    139

    36%

    86

    22%

    2.8

    1.46

    TR3

    Modeling SEC

    F

    %

    203

    53%

    55

    14%

    11

    3%

    61

    16%

    54

    14%

    3.8

    1.54

    TR4

    Encouragement of students

    F

    %

    139

    36%

    93

    24%

    0

    %

    66

    17%

    86

    22%

    3.3

    1.62

    TR5

    Public dealing

    F

    %

    197

    51%

    66

    17%

    0

    0%

    64

    16%

    57

    15%

    3.7

    1.56

    TR6

    Completion of syllabus

    F

    %

    70

    18%

    40

    10%

    26

    7%

    185

    48%

    63

    16%

    2.6

    1.36

     

    Total

    F

    864

    396

    54

    583

    407

    3.3

    1.5

     

    The table indicates that the factor of teachers’ responses in the classroom affects the development of SEC. The teachers’ positive attitude with students in the classroom, their modelling of SEC in the classroom, their behavior of encouragement of the students in the classroom to deal with their daily life problems and the skill they develop in the students to deal with others or to respect others affect the development of SEC the most. And their negative attitude, their threatening behavior or their shouting behavior in the classroom least affects the development of SEC.

     

    Table 3. Students’ Attitude Regarding Parents’ Responses

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    PR1

    Parent-children interaction

    F

    %

    139

    36%

    66

    17%

    0

    0%

    93

    24%

    86

    22%

    3.2

    1.64

    PR2

    The angry mood of parents

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    93

    24%

    15

    4%

    139

    36%

    71

    18%

    2.8

    1.41

    PR3

    Happy mood of parents

    F

    %

    151

    39%

    93

    24%

    9

    2%

    60

    16%

    71

    18%

    3.35

    1.56

    PR4

    Modeling to stay calm

    F

    %

    59

    15%

    229

    60%

    3

    1%

    50

    13%

    43

    11%

    3.5

    1.21

    PR5

    Hesitation in sharing feelings

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    197

    51%

    0

    0%

    64

    16%

    57

    15%

    3.4

    1.34

     

    Total

    F

    481

    678

    27

    406

    328

    3.25

    1.4

     

    The table indicates that parents children interaction, provision of opportunities to children to discuss their problems and issues of daily life, the happy mood of the parents (their encouraging attitude) and their skill to stay calm in different stressful situations develop SEC among students. And their shouting attitude, their insulting attitude is less effective.

     

    Table 4. Students’ Attitude Regarding Classmates’ Responses

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    CR1

    Criticism from classmates

    F

    %

    50

    13%

    101

    26%

    18

    5%

    153

    40%

    62

    14%

    2.8

    1.33

    CR2

    Sharing attitude of classmates

    F

    %

    185

    48%

    40

    10%

    26

    7%

    70

    18%

    63

    16%

    3.5

    1.6

    CR3

    Helping attitude of classmates

    F

    %

    203

    53%

    55

    14%

    11

    3%

    61

    16%

    54

    14%

    3.8

    1.54

    CR4

    Hesitation in asking the question

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    197

    51%

    0

    0%

    64

    16%

    57

    15%

    3.4

    1.34

    CR5

    Consideration of classmate’s view

    F

    %

    151

    39%

    69

    18%

    3

    1%

    90

    24%

    71

    18%

    3.4

    1.61

     

    Total

    F

    655

    462

    58

    438

    307

    3.4

    1.5

     

    The table indicates the total mean of all the items 3.4 and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that almost overall, the factor of classmates’ response affect SEC of students.

     

    Table 5. Students’ Attitude Regarding Friends’ Responses

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    FR1

    The apologetic attitude of friends

    F

    %

    221

    57%

    61

    16%

    5

    1%

    52

    14%

    45

    12%

    3.9

    1.47

    FR2

    Reading facial expressions

    F

    %

    63

    16%

    185

    48%

    0

    0%

    40

    10%

    96

    25%

    3.2

    1.48

    FR3

    Tolerance of friends’ mistake

    F

    %

    215

    56%

    58

    15%

    8

    2%

    52

    13%

    51

    13%

    3.9

    1.51

    FR4

    Quarrel with friends

    F

    %

    69

    18%

    139

    36%

    5

    1%

    81

    21%

    90

    23%

    3.0

    1.49

    FR5

    The caring attitude of friends

    F

    %

    229

    60%

    59

    15%

    3

    1%

    50

    13%

    43

    11%

    4.0

    1.46

     

    Total

    F

    797

    502

    21

    275

    325

    3.6

    1.5

     

    The table indicates the total mean of the items of factor “friends’ response” 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation 1.5 that shows the high level of acceptance of the statements.

     

    Table 6. Students’ Attitude Regarding Classroom Environment

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    CE1

    Friendship with teachers

    F

    %

    203

    53%

    55

    14%

    11

    3%

    61

    16%

    54

    14%

    3.8

    1.54

    CE2

    Task centered environment of the classroom

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    197

    51%

    0

    0%

    64

    16%

    57

    15%

    3.4

    1.34

    CE3

    Punishment of students

    F

    %

    232

    60%

    56

    15%

    3

    1%

    51

    13%

    42

    11%

    4.0

    1.45

    CE4

    Feedback provision

    F

    %

    214

    56%

    59

    15%

    8

    2%

    52

    13%

    51

    13%

    3.9

    1.51

    CE5

    Consideration of the opinion of students

    F

    %

    63

    16%

    185

    48%

    0

    0%

    40

    10%

    96

    25%

    3.2

    1.48

     

    Total

    F

    778

    552

    22

    268

    300

    3.6

    1.4

     

    The table indicates the mean score of total items of the factor classroom environment 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation of 1.4, which shows that the factor “classroom environment” affect the development of SEC.

     

    Table 7. Students’ Attitude Regarding Home Environment

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    HE1

    Kindness to the children

    F

    %

    233

    61%

    55

    14%

    3

    1%

    50

    13%

    43

    11%

    4.0

    1.46

    HE2

    Nervousness in a new situation

    F

    %

    218

    57%

    41

    11%

    9

    2%

    52

    13%

    64

    17%

    3.7

    1.6

    HE3

    Act of being frightened from parents

    F

    %

    152

    39%

    92

    24%

    9

    2%

    61

    16%

    70

    18%

    3.3

    1.5

    HE4

    Act of fighting

    F

    %

    217

    57%

    42

    11%

    9

    2%

    51

    13%

    65

    17%

    3.7

    1.6

    HE5

    Act of thinking before doing

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    197

    51%

    0

    0%

    64

    16%

    57

    15%

    3.4

    1.34

    HE6

    Socioeconomic status of family

    F

    %

    188

    50%

    50

    13%

    17

    4%

    67

    18%

    62

    16%

    3.6

    1.59

     

    Total

    F

    1074

    477

    47

    345

    361

    3.6

    1.5

     

    The table indicates the overall mean of all items of the factor “home environment” 3.6 (greater than 3.00) and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that the factor home environment affects the development of SEC.

     

    Table 8. Students’ Attitude Regarding Media Interaction

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    MI1

    Undesired effects of media

    F

    %

    202

    53%

    56

    14%

    11

    3%

    60

    16%

    55

    14%

    3.8

    1.55

    MI2

    Media addiction

    F

    %

    203

    53%

    55

    14%

    11

    3%

    54

    14%

    61

    16%

    3.8

    1.5

    MI3

    Participation in public debates

    F

    %

    139

    36%

    66

    17%

    15

    4%

    71

    18%

    93

    24%

    3.2

    1.64

    MI4

    Meeting new people through social media

    F

    %

    62

    16%

    186

    48%

    0

    0%

    39

    10%

    97

    25%

    3.2

    1.48

    MI5

    Lack of interaction with family

    F

    %

    218

    57%

    41

    11%

    9

    2%

    52

    13%

    64

    17%

    3.7

    1.6

     

    Total

    F

    824

    404

    46

    276

    370

    3.5

    1.5

     

    The table shows the overall mean of all items of the factor “Media Interaction” 3.5 and the standard deviation 1.5, which shows that the factor media interaction affects the development of SEC among students.

     

    Students’ Social-Emotional Competence

    To achieve the second objective, students’ possession of SEC, the result of the study is as follows

     

    Table 9. Students’ Response Regarding Self-Consciousness

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    SC1

    Handling different situations

    F

    %

    229

    60%

    59

    15%

    0

    0%

    53

    14%

    43

    11%

    3.9

    1.46

    SC2

    Knowledge of actions and reactions

    F

    %

    45

    11%

    221

    57%

    5

    1%

    61

    16%

    52

    14%

    3.4

    1.26

    SC3

    Understanding moods

    F

    %

    127

    13%

    162

    42%

    2

    1%

    32

    8%

    61

    16%

    3.7

    1.41

    SC4

    Understanding emotions

    F

    %

    151

    40%

    93

    24%

    0

    0%

    71

    18%

    69

    17%

    3.5

    1.57

    SC5

    Facial expressions

    F

    %

    138

    36%

    67

    17%

    14

    4%

    73

    18%

    92

    24%

    3.2

    1.64

     

    Total

    F

    690

    602

    21

    290

    317

    3.5

    1.4

     

    It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “self-consciousness” is 3.5, and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that mostly the students possess the skill of self-consciousness.

     

    Table 10. Students’ Response Regarding Social-Consciousness

    No.

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    SoC1

    Personality judgment

    F

    %

    153

    39%

    93

    24%%

    8

    2%

    62

    16%

    68

    18%

    3.3

    1.55

    SoC2

    Knowing others’ feelings

    F

    %

    43

    11%

    223

    57%

    5

    1%

    62

    16%

    51

    14%

    3.4

    1.25

    SoC3

    Feeling down

    F

    %

    153

    40%

    91

    24%

    0

    0%

    73

    18%

    67

    17%

    3.5

    1.57

    SoC4

    Understanding others’ actions and reaction

    F

    %

    153

    39%

    93

    24%

    7

    2%

    60

    16%

    71

    18%

    3.3

    1.57

    SoC5

    Understanding others’ moods

    F

    %

    231

    60%

    57

    15%

    0

    0%

    54

    14%

    42

    11%

    3.9

    1.46

     

    Total

    F

    733

    557

    20

    311

    299

    3.5

    1.5

     

    It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “social consciousness” are 3.5, and the standard deviation of the items is 1.5, which shows that mostly the students possess the skill of social consciousness.

     

    Table 11. Students’ Response Regarding Self-Regulation

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    SR1

    Dealing with crises

    F

    %

    67

    17%

    92

    24%

    15

    4%

    137

    36%

    73

    18%

    2.8

    1.41

    SR2

    Manage anxiety

    F

    %

    72

    19%

    181

    47%

    5

    1%

    81

    21%

    45

    12%

    3.4

    1.31

    SR3

    Dealing with wrong things

    F

    %

    75

    19%

    91

    23%

    14

    4%

    135

    36%

    69

    18%

    2.9

    1.41

    SR4

    Stay positive

    F

    %

    63

    16%

    185

    48%

    0

    0%

    40

    10%

    96

    25%

    3.2

    1.48

    SR5

    Use of calm down strategy

    F

    %

    66

    17%

    93

    24%

    15

    4%

    139

    36%

    71

    18%

    2.8

    1.41

     

    Total

    F

    343

    642

    49

    532

    354

    3.0

    1.4

     

    It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “self-regulation” are 3.0 (in the range of acceptance), and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that the average number of the students possess the skill of self-regulation however average number of students don’t possess the skill of dealing with crises, dealing with wrong things and the skill of calming down.

     

    Table 12. Students’ Response Regarding Relationship Building

    No.

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    RB1

    Apologetic attitude

    F

    %

    149

    39%

    92

    24%

    9

    2%

    62

    16%

    72

    18%

    3.3

    1.5

    RB2

    Comforting friends

    F

    %

    64

    16%

    184

    48%

    0

    0%

    39

    10%

    97

    25%

    3.2

    1.48

    RB3

    Avoiding criticism

    F

    %

    129

    33%

    160

    42%

    2

    1%

    31

    8%

    62

    16%

    3.7

    1.42

    RB4

    Possessing tolerance

    F

    %

    93

    24%

    71

    18%

    0

    0%

    62

    16%

    158

    42%

    2.7

    1.7

    RB5

    Maintaining dignity

    F

    %

    214

    56%

    59

    15%

    6

    2%

    53

    13%

    52

    13%

    3.9

    1.52

     

    Total

    F

    649

    566

    17

    247

    441

    3.36

    1.5

     

    It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “relationship building” is 3.36 (in

    the range of acceptance) and the standard deviation of the items is 1.5, which shows that the average number

    of the students possess the skill of relationship building.

     

    Table 13. Students’ Response Regarding Decisiveness

    S. No

    Statement

    Options

    SA

    A

    U

    DA

    SDA

    M

    SD

    D1

    Consideration of consequences

    F

    %

    50

    13%

    101

    26%

    18

    5%

    153

    40%

    62

    16%

    2.8

    1.33

    D2

    Positive outcome

    F

    %

    128

    33%

    161

    42%

    2

    1%

    30

    8%

    63

    16%

    3.7

    1.42

    D3

    Situation analysis

    F

    %

    74

    19%

    179

    47%

    6

    1%

    80

    21%

    45

    12%

    3.4

    1.32

    D4

    Wise recommendation

    F

    %

    228

    8%

    60

    15%

    0

    0%

    54

    14%

    42

    11%

    3.9

    1.46

    D5

    Analyzing pros and cons

    F

    %

    216

    56%

    57

    15%

    10

    2%

    51

    13%

    50

    13%

    3.9

    1.5

     

    Total

    F

    696

    558

    36

    368

    262

    3.5

    1.4

     

    It is indicated that the total mean scores of the statements of the factor “decisiveness” are 3.5 (in the range of acceptance), and the standard deviation of the items is 1.4, which shows that the average number of the students possess the skill of decisiveness.

    Discussion

    The first objective of the study was to identify the factors affecting SEC of secondary school students. After having analysis, it was found that factors teachers’ response, parents’ responses, classmates’ responses, friends’ responses, classroom environment, home environment and media interaction affect the development of SEC.

    The teachers’ positive attitude with students in the classroom, their modelling of SEC in the classroom, their behavior of encouragement of the students in the classroom to deal with their daily life problems and the skill they develop in the students to deal with others or to respect others affect the development of SEC the most. And sharing attitude of classmates, the helping attitude of the classmates and consideration of classmates’ positive views affect the most. This is in the streamline with the result previously conducted by Becker & Luthar (2002). According to this study, the teachers’ support in the classroom and appreciation from peers helps a lot in the development of SEC among students.

    In the study, it was founded that parents children interaction, provision of opportunities to children to discuss their problems and issues of daily life, parents’ encouraging attitude, and their skill to stay calm in different stressful situations develop SEC among students. And the act of kindness to the children affects the most in the development of SEC, whereas the act of being frightened from parents affect the least in the development of SEC. These findings are in line with the results previously conducted by Pierce (2000). According to him, the lack of a strong relationship between parents and the children and strict behavior of the parents creates the problem related to SEC among children.

    Schultz, Richardson, Barber & Wilcox (2011) argued that cooperation of friends paves the way to get SEC, and so is the finding of the present study, it was found that apologetic attitude of the friends, caring attitude of the friends and tolerance of friends’ mistakes affect the most in the development of SEC. Frey, Nolen, Edstrom & Hirschstein (2005) argued that students who have media interaction a lot are noticed to have dense friendship networks that affect their SEC. Guo & Johnson (2020) investigated that undesired effects of media such as hate speeches affect the development of students’ SEC, and so is the result of the present study. 

    The second objective of the study was to examine the SEC of secondary school students. After analysis, it was found that the most possessed skills are handling different situations and understanding one’s own mood that is included in the factor of self-consciousness. Most of the students possess the skill to understand the mood of others that is included in the factor of social consciousness. They are weak in possession of the skills of calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises that are included in the factor of self-regulation. They are good at keeping their dignity and avoiding criticism in case of quarrels with friends; however, they are not good at dealing with every matter with tolerance that is included in the factor of relationship building. They are good at making recommendations wisely; however, they are weak in considering the consequences before taking the actions that are included in the factor of decisiveness.

    Conclusion

    For the first objective, it is concluded that friends’ response, classroom environment and home environment affecting SEC the most as compared to other factors. While the factor least affect the development of the SEC is media interaction. For the second objective, it is concluded that self-consciousness, social consciousness and the factor decisiveness are possessed by the students the most. And the factor self-regulation is possessed by the students the least. The skills in which the students are weak included calming down, dealing with wrong things and skill of staying positive during crises in the factor of self-regulation. Students are not good at dealing with every matter with tolerance, and they are weak in considering the consequences before taking the actions. Both of these are included in the factors of relationship building and decisiveness, respectively.

    Furthermore, it is suggested that for the development of SEC training must be provided to the teachers and other staff.

References

  • Abraham, R. (2014). Emotional competence as antecedent to performance: a contingency framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 130(2), 117-143.
  • Beaty-O'Ferrall, M. E., Green, A., & Hanna, F. (2010). Classroom management strategies for difficult students: Promoting change through relationships. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 4-11.
  • Becker, B. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2002). Social-emotional factors affecting achievement outcomes among disadvantaged students: Closing the achievement gap. Educational psychologist, 37(4), 197-214.
  • Brett, A., Smith, M., & Huitt, W. (2003). Overview of the affective domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
  • Chandio, & Iqbal. (2016). Improving assessment and teaching learning process.
  • Ciarrochi, J. & Scott, G. (2006). The link between emotional competence and well-being: a longitudinal study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34, 231-243.
  • DeLay, D., Zhang, L., Hanish, L. D., Miller, C. F., Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Updegraff, K. A. (2016). Peer influence on academic performance: A social network analysis of social-emotional intervention effects. Prevention Science, 17(8), 903-913.
  • Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early education and development, 17(1), 57-89.
  • Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Losoya, S. (1997). E
  • Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Edstrom, L. V. S., & Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social- emotional competence program: Linking children's goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 26(2), 171-200.
  • Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59(2), 146-164.
  • Guo, L., & Johnson, B. G. (2020). Third-Person Effect and Hate Speech Censorship on Facebook. Social Media Society, 6(2), 2056305120923003.
  • Iftikhar, S., Jafri, H., & Arain, A. (2012). Assessment of instructional objectives.
  • Jones, S. M., Barnes, S. P., Bailey, R., & Doolittle, E. J. (2017). Promoting social and emotional competencies in elementary school. The Future of Children, 49-72.
  • Joseph, G. E., Strain, P. S. (2013). Helping young children control anger and handle disappointment. Young Exceptional Children, 7(1), 21-29.
  • Kirk, K. (2020). student motivation and attitude.
  • Larson, J. J., Whitton, S. W., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (2007). Being Close and Being Social: Peer Ratings of Distinct Aspects of Young Adult Social Competence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89 (2), 136-148.
  • Malik, & Zaheer. (2012), An analysis of question paper at secondary level.
  • Marsh, H., & Craven, R. (2002). Structure, stability, and development of young children's selfconcepts: A Multicohort-multioccasion study. Child Development, 69(4), 43-53.
  • Mill, K., & Kim, H. (2017). Teaching problem solving: Let students get 'stuck' and 'unstuck'.
  • motional responding: Regulation, social correlates, and socialization. New York: Basic Books.
  • Murakami, K., Murray, L., Sims, D., & Chedzey, K. (2009). Learning on Work Placement: The Narrative Development of Social Competence. Journal of Adult Development, 16, 13-24.
  • Oberst, U., Gallifa, J., Farriols, N., & Villaregut, A. (2009). Training Emotional and Social Competences in Higher Education: The Seminar Methodology. Higher Education in Europe, vol. 34, no. 3-4.
  • Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83- 98.
  • Pierce, R. (2000). A Good Beginning: Sending America's Children to School with the Social and Emotional Competence They Need to Succeed.
  • Raosoft. (2019).sample size calculator.
  • Raver, C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic contexts. ChildDevelopment, 75, 346-353.
  • Schultz, B. L., Richardson, R. C., Barber, C. R., & Wilcox, D. (2011). A preschool pilot study of connecting with others: Lessons for teaching social and emotional competence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(2), 143-148.
  • Seal, C. R., Naumann, S., Scott, A., & Royce-Davis, J. (2011). Social-emotional development: a new model of student learning in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 10, 37-47.
  • Singh, M. (2014). psychology notes on relationship management.
  • Smart, D., & Sanson, A. (2003). Social competence in young adulthood - its nature and antecedents. Journal of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1, 56-71.
  • Stewart, M. F., & Chisholm, C. U. (2012). Comparative analysis of emotional competency within distinct student cohorts. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 14(2), 163-169
  • 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, 405- 432.
  • Virtual lab school. (2019). Promoting Children's Social Skills and Emotional Competence
  • Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. New York, NY: Guilford.
  • Zhou, M., & Ee, J. (2012). Development and Validation of the Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire (SECQ)

Cite this article

    CHICAGO : Kulsoom, Sumera, and Irshad Hussain. 2020. "Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, V (III): 373-384 doi: 10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).36
    HARVARD : KULSOOM, S. & HUSSAIN, I. 2020. Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level. Global Educational Studies Review, V, 373-384.
    MHRA : Kulsoom, Sumera, and Irshad Hussain. 2020. "Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, V: 373-384
    MLA : Kulsoom, Sumera, and Irshad Hussain. "Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, V.III (2020): 373-384 Print.
    OXFORD : Kulsoom, Sumera and Hussain, Irshad (2020), "Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level", Global Educational Studies Review, V (III), 373-384
    TURABIAN : Kulsoom, Sumera, and Irshad Hussain. "Analyzing Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Competence at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review V, no. III (2020): 373-384. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).36